The Normal Lights

Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Questions Students Ask as

Indices of their Comprehension
Ronelo Collamar1* Alice M. Karaan
Macario B. Asistio Sr. High SchoolUnit I Maria Sarah S. Palma
collamar_ronelo@yahoo.com Philippine Normal University

Abstract This study investigated student-generated

questions as indices of comprehension levels; employed
the descriptive design to describe comprehension levels
of 46 Grade 8 participants via their generated questions;
employed question-generation sheets for both narrative
and expository texts to gather data; utilized three phases
to carry out the study; and used mean and percentages
to report the data. Results revealed that: (1) the five
comprehension levels ranked the same for both texts;
(2) questions on character traits surfaced in narrative but
not in expository; (3) reorganization level obtained the
lowest percentage for both texts; (4) few questions were
exhibited under reorganization and appreciation levels; (5)
schemata and metacognitive were employed; and (6) L1
aided them on question generation. The study concluded
that comprehension is triggered when participants are
given leeway to generate questions before, during, and
after reading the selections. It recommended that: (1)
student questions may be utilized; (2) a seminar on Barrett
taxonomy may be introduced; and (3) future researchers
may conduct a similar study.

Keywords: Barrett taxonomy of comprehension levels,

metacognition, schema theory, student-generated questions

Suggested Citation: Collamar, R., Karaan, A. M., Palma, M. S. S. (2017). Questions students ask as indices
of their comprehension. The Normal Lights, 11(1), 109 140.
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Introduction
Comprehension-related problems have been besetting the
educational institutions all over the country. The 2009,
2010, and 2011 National Achievement Test (NAT) results
revealed that second year students of Caloocan struggled
much on reading comprehension as shown by the three mean
percentage scores in English subject in general. In particular,
the mean percentage scores of the researchers school for
the school years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011
were 43.11, 36.57, and 36.60, respectively (Department of
Educational Testing and Research Center, 2009; 2010; 2011).
Columna (2013) found that students were still struggling to
comprehend texts in L2 with majority of them falling under
the instructional level and a significant number under the
frustration level. Similarly, the students in the secondary
level had difficulty in reading materials in the content areas
especially in Mathematics and Science (Dela Cruz, 2004).

Unfortunately, in culling studies conducted in the

Philippines, the researcher encountered only a few related to
the present study, and these studies dealt with subject areas
other than English. Hence, this investigation is filler to the
recognized research gap by expounding on whether there are
differences in the student-generated questions between the
narrative and expository texts.

Though the current practice of checking

comprehension and answering teachers questions seeks
to enhance the development of comprehension skills, still,
a number of students responses show that a problem on
comprehension is far from being resolved. The researcher
posited that student-generated questions may be indices
of students comprehension levels, for they aid and fuel
comprehension. Rooks (2009), Taboada (2003), Chin (2002),
Pangilinan (2001), Keys (1998), and Gallanosa-Garcia
(1994) found that student-generated questions have an

110
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

impact on reading comprehension. Therefore, this study on

student-generated questions for both narrative and expository
becomes imperative because few teachers let their students
ask questions that would eventually clarify confusions and
would possibly guide them in their reading and understanding
texts. In addition, results of the participants comprehension
levels would be useful to administrators, teachers, students,
and to future researchers as well who are finding solutions to
comprehension-related problems.

Student-generated Questions

Studies on questions were conducted to find out the

effects of the questioning method and students questioning
skills on their performance. Santos (2004) found that the
questioning group shifted from low level to higher level
questions. This means that the questioning method improved
the students questioning skill, and it had a significant effect
on student performance. Similarly, Buendicho (2009) found
that student-initiated questioning had a significant positive
effect on the students questioning skills and reasoning.
According to Matibag-Angeles (2008), self-questioning
spawned significant gains in the comprehension of Level
7 students.

Levels of Questions

Questions can be classified into different levels.

In this study, the Barrett taxonomy of comprehension
levels was utilized to classify or categorize the elicited
student-generated questions. According to Barrett (1972),
it is designed originally to assist teachers in developing
comprehension questions and/or test questions for reading
and to determine students understanding levels of the
assigned texts. Barrett taxonomy is divided into five main
categories: (1) literal; (2) reorganization; (3) inference;

111
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

(4) evaluation; and (5) appreciation. According to Cotton

(2000), lower cognitive questions are also referred to as fact,
closed, direct, recall, and knowledge questions. The second
kind of questions is the higher-level-questions, also called as
interpretative, evaluative, inquiry, inferential, and synthesis
questions, which ask the students to mentally manipulate
bits of information previously learned to create or support an
answer with logically reasoned evidence.

The types of questions asked during the period of

observation were grossly of the lower order type: knowledge,
comprehension, and application while the higher order types
such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation were a negligible
entity (Abonal, 1993).

Reading Theories

The schema theory is grounded on the learners

background knowledge. According to May (1990), while the
readers background knowledge is the readers previously
acquired knowledge, the schemata are mini-theories about
things, people, language, places, and other phenomena in our
background of experiences.

Taboada (2003) investigated the relationship

of student-generated questions and prior knowledge to
reading comprehension by examining the characteristics of
student-generated questions in relation to text. She found
that comprehension of expository texts in the domain of
ecological science was related to students prior knowledge.

Metacognition. According to Alder (2001),

metacognition is defined as thinking about thinking. In the
research community, the use of metacognition as a positive
learning strategy has been well-established (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Marzano, 2001; Pressley, 2002). Lehr
and Osborn (2005) elucidate that metacognition refers to
readers awareness of their cognition; that is, theyre thinking

112
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

about their thinking if before they read they use their textual
knowledge to think about and set purposes and expectation
for their reading.

Student-Generated
Schema Theory
Questions
Metacognition
(Active Reading)

Barret Taxonomy of
Questions

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 indicates that the student-generated

questions are indices of students comprehension levels.
The framework shows that the students background
knowledge is a foundation which they could use in reading
and understanding selections. The schemata of the learners
pertain to their direct or indirect learning experiences. Direct
learning occurs primarily in school where the teachers and
the students come together and do the teaching-learning
processes while indirect learning has something to do with
the students vicarious experiences. Both types of learning
constitute the learners holistic background knowledge since
the two modes of learning combine and become one.

Active and meaningful reading means students

generate questions before, during, and after reading
(Yiiter, K. et al., 2005). In this process students employ the
metacognitive strategy to check whether their formulated
questions are correct or not vis-a-vis their background
knowledge and the information present. Likewise, active
reading is expounded by the students use of metacognition
in their quest to comprehend the selection. This is reflected
in the student-generated questions where rethinking,

113
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

reconsidering, and revising of their previous queries are

evident. The present study considered this as a monitoring-
thinking strategy employed by the participants who wanted
to verify or change their lines of thought because they
realized that what they had generated were insufficient
in relation to textual contents, scenarios, or situations.
Subjecting student-generated questions to the Barrett
taxonomy enabled the researcher to classify whether the
queries were of the Literal, Reorganization, Inference,
Evaluation, or Appreciation levels.

Interconnections among Barrett taxonomy, schema

theory, and metacognition may be displayed in the student-
generated questions. Students questions create a lot of
interplays, i.e., from schema to metacognition and vice-versa.
The participants may utilize their background knowledge in
framing questions. Their schemata could be derived from
formal learning in school, personal experiences, and in
vicarious learning.

Purposes of the Research

This study puts student questions under investigation.
Specifically, this study addressed the following research
questions:
(1) What are the levels of students comprehension
based on the questions they generate on
expository and narrative texts?

(2) What are the differences or similarities in the

questions generated by the students between the
narrative and expository texts ?

114
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Methodology
The descriptive type of research was used in this study
because (1) it is a simple design that accounts for human
activity, and (2) it deals with an existing condition
(Cayaban-Casela & Cuevas, 2010). The design was deemed
suitable because the data pertained to questions as outputs
of a human activity.

Participants

Forty-six Grade 8 students were chosen as

participants of the study for the following reasons: (1) It
would be convenient to have them as subjects as they were
the researchers students in English; and (2) They could
construct or generate questions.

Data Collection

The study was carried out in three phases as shown

below.

Phase I Phase II Phase III

Preliminary Pilot study Actual study

steps administration administration
Selection Familiarization Text reading
of both on levels of and generating
narrative and comprehension of questions
expository questions Classifying
texts the student-
Text reading
Fry and generating generated
readability of questions questions vis-
test of the -vis Barrett
Analysis and
chosen texts taxonomy
interpretation
Teacher of student- Analysis and
judgment generated interpretation
on text of student
questions
readability questions

Figure 2. Phases of the Study.

115
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Phase I

This phase included narrative and expository texts

which afterward were subjected to Fry readability test to
establish their grade level. The texts were further judged
by teachers who helped determine their suitability to the
target readers.

Selection of texts. The two narrative and expository

selections consisting of A Hug from a Teenage Boy and
What Is Global Warming? respectively, were selected
by the researcher himself. The former was taken from a
book while the latter was drawn from the internet. These
selections served as stimuli for question generation.

Afterward, the researcher administered the Fry

readability test.

Fry readability. The Fry readability formula

was utilized in determining the grade level of the texts
employed. This was done to ensure that the selections were
suitable to the reading level of the students.

Teachers judgment. Twenty-nine (29) teacher-

judges evaluated the selections used in this study. They
were asked to give their own opinion by responding to a
set of questions. The teachers were allowed to take home
the survey form so that they would have ample time to read
the selections.

116
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Below is an account of the preliminary steps

establishing readability.

Table 1. Results of the Fry Readability Tests.

Narrative Expository
Three
Sets Number of Number of Number of Number of
syllables sentences syllables sentences

First 100
144 8.2 153 6.63
words
Second
100 127 6.45 143 6.36
words
Third
100 128 8.33 157 6.47
words
Total/
399/3=133 22.98/3=7.66 453/3=151 19.46/3=6.49
Average

Table 1 shows that the average number of syllables

and the average number of sentences for the three sets of
100 words is 133 (for narrative) and 151 (for expository),
7.66 (for narrative) and 6.49 (for expository), respectively.
According to the Fry Readability Formula, these figures are
at the grade level of the student-participants.

Table 2. Teachers judgment on the narrative text.

Responses
Survey Questions
Yes No
1. Is the narrative text readable by the Grade 29 0
8 students? 100% 0%
25 4
2. Is it interesting to the Grade 8 students?
86.21% 13.79%
3. Is the selection too hard for Grade 8 students 12 17
to handle? 41.38% 58.62%
4. Can the text be used to gauge the students 27 2
comprehension? 93.10% 6.90%
5. Is the text of desirable length (neither too 29 0
long nor too short)? 100% 0%

117
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Table 3. Teachers judgment on the expository text.

Responses
Survey Questions
Yes No
1. Is the expository text readable by the Grade 21 8
8 students? 72.41% 27.59%
17 12
2. Is it interesting to Grade 8 students?
58.62% 41.38%
3. Is the selection too hard for Grade 8 students 11 18
to handle? 37.93% 62.07%
4. Can the text be used to gauge the students 20 9
comprehension? 68.97% 31.03%
5. Is the text of desirable length (neither too 19 10
long nor too short)? 65.52% 34.48%

It can be gleaned from Tables 2 and 3 that teachers

judgment or opinion supported the results of the Fry
readability test. Majority of the teachers believed that both
texts are: (1) readable by Grade 8 students; (2) the narrative
and expository selections were interesting; (3) not too
hard for students; (4) could be used to gauge the students
comprehension; and (5) of the desired length.

Phase II

The purpose of the pilot test was to try out the

procedure employed in the study proper. The procedures
undertaken in this phase are described as follows:

Pilot study administration. Pilot testing, with 120

participants, was undertaken to ensure that the subsequent
actual administration would run smoothly.

The first step of the pilot study was students

familiarization on the levels of comprehension questions.
This was pursued to gauge the capacity of students generating
questions. It was assumed that the observed student difficulty
in generating questions would suggest duplicating this step in
the actual conduct of the study (Phase III).

118
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Phase III

This phase involved actual study administration

guided by lessons and insights gained from the pilot testing.

Actual study administration. This time, forty-six (46)

students comprising one section served as the participants.
The steps employed in the pilot study were replicated.

The first step was a brief orientation on the Barrett

taxonomy intended to prepare the students in generating
their own questions.

The second step concentrated on text reading and

generating of questions utilizing the same procedures
undertaken during the pilot study. However, other features
were modified and improved such as running this activity
as a regular recitation period to avoid disruption of classes;
employing a teacher-guided generation of student questions;
and administering the question generation in two sessions
(i.e., one day was allotted for the narrative text and another
day for the expository text); and doing the analysis and
interpretation as bases for determining the levels of
comprehension questions.

Question generation was divided into three parts:

before, during, and after reading. The participants were
reminded to read and follow the instructions written on the
question-generation sheet.

The last step under Phase III was the analysis

and interpretation of student-generated question. In
carrying out this step, the Barrett taxonomy was utilized
to determine the level of questions made. Frequencies,
percentages, and actual questions served as bases for the
descriptive interpretation of the data gathered to answer the
two research questions in this study.

119
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Results and Discussion

Tables 4 and 5 capture the frequencies and percentages
obtained from the students levels of comprehension on the
narrative and expository texts, respectively.

Comprehension levels of student-generated

questions on expository and narrative texts

Table 4. Levels of students comprehension on the narrative

text.
Student-Generated Questions
The Barrett
Taxonomy of
Overall
Comprehension
Before During After
levels % R % R % R
Reading Reading Reading
Total % R

Literal 35 16.06 3 88 36.97 2 45 32.14 2 168 28.19 2

Reorganization 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5

Inference 138 63.30 1 114 47.90 1 73 52.14 1 325 54.53 1

Evaluation 36 16.51 2 30 12.61 3 16 11.43 3 82 13.76 3

Appreciation 9 4.13 4 6 2.52 4 6 4.29 4 21 3.52 4

Total 218 238 140 596 100

Before Reading

Questions generated on the narrative text before

reading were predominantly inferential. The only clue
available to students for question generation was the title of
the selection. Given this limited information, it was expected
that students predictions about the text are informed by
their background knowledge and prior experiences (Leu &
Kinzer, 1999; Hansen, 1981). In other words, guided by their
schemata they needed to infer. Inferences/predictions made
were along supporting details, outcomes, character traits,

120
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

and cause and effect relationships. Barrett (1972) elucidates

that inferential comprehension is demonstrated by students
when they use ideas and information stated in the selection,
their intuition, and their personal experience as a basis for
conjectures and hypotheses.

The following sample questions are inferential and

sub-categorized accordingly. It may be noticed that many of
them are syntactically erroneous; yet, they express intentions
clearly. Hence, the researcher culled them faithfully.
Questions on inferring supporting details surfaced: Paano
nagbago ang ugali ng mga lalaki (How do attitude of men
change?)?; and For whom the hug from a teenage boy?

The next subcategory is questions pertinent to

inferring predicting outcomes such as What will happen
to the story and Ano kaya ang mangyayare sa wakas (What
will eventually happen?)?

During Reading

Questions raised in this stage of reading are text-

dependent, i.e., they relate to text content. A majority of the
students questions during reading were also of the inferential
type. In contrast, however, to the questions generated during
the before reading stage, this type of questions was followed
sequentially by the literal, evaluation, appreciation, and
reorganization levels. Hansen (1981) describes this as a
state that readers improve their abilities to construct meaning
when they are taught how to make inferences which readers
guesses or predictions about the texts.

Inferential student-questions such as Mahal ba ng

ina ang teenage boy? and Bakit nila kailangang magdiwang
para sa kanilang mga ina (Why do they need to celebrate
for their mothers?)? were subcategorized as inferring
supporting details because apparently students are intended

121
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

to conjecture about additional facts the author could have

included in the selection which would have made it more
informative, interesting, or appealing.

On inferring of cause and effect relationship,

students questions like Bakit kinakailangan ng isang
bata ang suporta ng ina (Why does a child need mothers
support?)? and Why his friends mother is not around
the program? were formulated to hypothesize about the
motivations of characters and their interactions with time
and place. These queries were likewise intended to speculate
on what caused the author to include certain ideas, words,
characterizations, and action in his or her writing.

Student-formulated questions under inferring

character traits such as Ano ba ang ugali ni Jimmy (How
does Jimmy behave?)? and Bakit hinayaan ng guro na ibigay
ni Jimmy ang regalong ginawa para sa kanyang ina (Why
did the teachers allow Jimmy to give the gift he made to his
mother?)? were intended to hypothesize about the nature of
characters on the basis of explicitly stated clues presented in
the selection.

After Reading

Student-generated questions after reading a narrative

text were similar to those questions during reading. The
inferential level ranked first. This was followed by the
literal, evaluation, appreciation and reorganization
levels as sequenced. On inferring of supporting details,
sample questions were Ano kaya ang pinaka feelings niya
habang nararanasan niya ang mga pangyayaring ito? and
Bakit parang ganoon na lang ang importansiya niya sa
pangyayaring ito (How did he feel while experiencing all
these event? and Why does he give much importance to the
events?)?

122
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Student-questions on inferring of cause and effect

relationship comprised Why Mrs. Marra say thank you to
Jimmy and her Mother? and Bakit bumalik si Jimmy sa board
(Why did Jimmy return to the board?)? These questions
aimed at showing reasons and consequences of actions as
well as behaviors. Likewise, question under inferring on
character traits surfaced. Questions under appreciation
ranked second to the last and were sub-classified as
emotional response to content, identification with character
or incidents, and reactions to authors language. Sample
questions on this level were: (1) Ano ang naging reaksiyon
mo sa pagmamagandang loob ng persona (What were your
reaction in regard the courtesy or good deed shown by the
person?)? (2) How do you treat your mom? and (3) Paano
naugnay ang pamagat sa kwento (How do you connect these
things to the title of the story?)? The first query is meant
to verbalize certain feelings as a reaction to personas good
intentions. The second one intends to elicit a response that
demonstrates sensitivity to, sympathy for, and empathy with
a character. The third question expects to respond to the
authors craftsmanship in terms of the semantic dimension
of the selection. Such appreciation is dependent upon the
denotation and connotations of words. Likewise, emotions
are inherent in appreciation.

Reorganization obtained the lowest percentage of

questions. Maybe, this level was not sufficiently understood
by students during the brief orientation on question-
generation.

The next section will deal with the presentation of the

results pertinent to the expository text.

123
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Table 5. Levels of student-generated questions on the

expository text.

Student-Generated Questions
The Barrett
Taxonomy of
Comprehension
Levels
Overall
Before During After
% R % R % R
Reading Reading Reading
Total % R

Literal 10 4.08 4 113 42.32 1 50 27.78 2 173 25 2

1.
Reorganization 0 0 5 3 5 0 0 5 3 .43 5
12

Inference 160 65.31 1 81 30.34 2 59 32.78 1 300 43.35 1

Evaluation 61 24.90 2 59 22.10 3 46 25.56 3 166 23.99 3

Appreciation 14 5.71 3 11 4.12 4 25 13.89 4 50 7.23 4

Total 245 267 180 692 100

Before Reading

The most prevalent student-generated questions

during the before reading were likewise inferential,
followed sequentially by evaluation, appreciation, literal,
and reorganization. On inferring of cause and effect
relationship, questions such as Bakit nagkaroon ng global
warming (Why did global warming occur?)? and Ano ang
magiging sanhi at bunga nito satin (What are the causes
and effects of global warming?)? were queries that clearly
conjecture on the causes and effects of global warming.

Questions on inferring of main ideas like What

is the meaning of global warming? dealt on the theme or
main topic of the expository text. This would mean that the
students wanted to know the gist of the text.

124
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Under evaluation, questions on judgment of

adequacy and validity include May solusyon ba sa
global warming (Is there or are there solutions to global
warming?)? and Makakaepekto ba ito sa tao, halaman,
hayop (Will global warming affect people, plants, and/or
animals?)? They appear to be seeking information from the
selection with an eye toward agreement and disagreement
and completeness and incompleteness with what they know.

Questions on judgment of fact or opinion were

formulated to analyze and evaluate the text on the basis of
the knowledge they have on the subject as well as to analyze
and evaluate the intent of the author. Sa palagay mo, tayo
ba ang naggawa ng Global Warming (Do you think that
we humans caused global warming?)? demonstrated this
subcategory.

On judgment of worth, desirability, and

acceptability, one example is the question, Kapupulutan
ba ito ng aral (Can we deduce any learning from this?)? It
exemplifies judgments based on the students moral code or
their value system, i.e., whether the text is worthy, desirable,
and acceptable.

On the appreciation level, questions were sub-

classified as identification with characters or incidents.
According to Barrett (1972), appreciation involves all the
previously cited cognitive dimensions of reading, for it deals
with the psychological and aesthetic impact of the selection
on the readers. Therefore, generated questions under this
level call for the readers to be emotionally and aesthetically
sensitive to the work and to have a reaction to the worth of
its psychological and artistic elements.

On the literal level, questions were subcategorized

as recalling of details. Apparently, the 10 questions were all
the same, i.e., asking what the title of the selection is.

125
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

During Reading

The most frequent questions of the participants

during reading were literal. Sample questions falling under
recalling of details are Sino-sino ang may kagagawan ng
Global Warming? and Ano ang katawagan sa nagagawa ng
araw at ng ating Daigdig? Answers to questions raised are
directly stated in the selection. On recalling of cause and
effect relationship, questions that surfaced are What is
the other effect of global warming? Apparently, questions
were formulated to recall the causes and effects of global
warming.

The inferential level of inquiries, which called for

reading between the lines, was the second most prevalent
student-questions. This level is viewed as more demanding in
terms of processing than the literal level. The subcategories
under this level include (1) inferring of supporting details,
(2) inferring of cause-effect relationship, (3) predicting
outcomes, (4) inferring of main ideas, and (5) inferring of
sequence.

Next to the inferential level was the evaluation

type of questions. Questions generated on judgment of
adequacy and validity were assumed to assess whether
the pieces of information presented were complete or not.
This was demonstrated by sample queries like Do so many
diseases or bacteria in a place possibly much increase
global warming? and Is the carbon dioxide the main culprit
of global warming? Questions of the participants were
deemed to prompt actions or possible solutions on global
warming. The feeling of being part of a solution were evident
in their queries.

Questions under judgment of appropriateness

and Judgment of reality or fantasy were only few. These
were Is there a treatment for global warming? and Anu-ano

126
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

ba ang mga dapat gawin upang maiwasan ang masyadong

tagtuyot na mararanasan (What are we suppose to do to
prevent us from experiencing drought?)?

After Reading

The most frequent student-generated questions after

reading were categorized as inferential. This was followed
by the literal, evaluation, appreciation, and reorganization
levels. Questions on inferring supporting details are
reflected in the following queries: Kailangan ba talaga itong
ingatan (Do we really need to secure these?)? and Hanggang
kailan natitiis ang Global Warming (How long can we endure
global warming?)? It is understood that answers to these
questions are not directly found in the selection; rather, they
need to be deduced.

On inferring of main ideas, the following questions

demonstrated that the participants wanted to identify the
main theme, gist, or moral lesson of the selection: Ano
ang natutunan mo matapos mabasa ang kwento? and Bakit
kailangan pag-aralan ang global warming?

Questions on inferring sequence showed that the

participants desired to know the possible order of events
right after certain actions stated in text. Queries like Paano
nagkaroon ng global warming ang isang lugar (How does
global warming occur in a particular place?)? and Kailan
nangyayari ang climate change (When does climate change
happen or occur?)? illustrated this question type..

Only one question was generated under inferring of

comparisons; to cite, Ano ang pagkakapareho ng climate
change at global warming (How do we compare climate
change and global warming?)? It could be interpreted as
students wanting to abstract the similarity between the two
ideas.

127
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Literal questions of the students were

subcategorized as recalling of details, recognition of
details, and recalling of cause and effect relationship.
Sample student-generated questions are Anong klaseng
panahon ang mararanasan ng Earth (What kind of weather
will Earth experience?)? and What is the serious effect
of global warming? These questions may be regarded
as afterthoughts of what students remembered about the
selection read.

In addition, evaluation questions were sub-classified

as (1) judgment of adequacy and validity; (2) judgment of
worth, desirability, and acceptability; (3) judgment of fact or
opinion; (4) judgment of appropriateness; and (5) judgment
of reality or fantasy. The following questions correspond
to the above-named categories: (1) Ito ba ay kabilang sa
dahilan na pagkakaroon ng global warming (Is this strange
event because of the presence of global warming?)? and (2)
Mahalaga bang maagang masulusyunan ang global warming
(Is it important to immediately resolve or solve the global
warming problem?)?

On the appreciation level, only the subcategory

on identification with characters or incidents surfaced.
Paano maging handa sa global warming (How do we
prepare ourselves for global warming?)? and Ano ang
dapat gawin para hindi magkaroon ng climate change
(What do people need to do to prevent global warming
from occuring?)? were sample questions drawn from the
participants.

The results of the study revealed that the most

prevalent levels of students comprehension based on
the questions they generated on narrative and expository
texts were inference and literal comprehension. These
levels obtained the first and second highest percentages,
respectively. This could be interpreted that the participants

128
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

of the study would perform better at these levels of

comprehension than at the other levels when asked to
read narrative and expository selections. Apparently, the
performance of the student-participants on the literal and
inferential levels supports the study conducted by Santos
(2004) wherein student-formulated questions revealed that
the participants under the questioning group shifted from a
low level to a higher level type of questions. In addition,
the subjects performance on inferential comprehension was
supported by their predictions before and during reading
which included questions that promote understanding
(Anderson & Pearson, 1984).

However, with regards to the result under the literal

level, the result of the present study was slightly different
from a previous study on student-generated questions
conducted by Aban (2006).

A possible reason why the participants of the study

performed well on the inference level was because they
belonged to the top section and may have already developed
their comprehension skills at it. Likewise, this could be due
to the type of selection. However, in terms of the literal
level, one strong influence may be the teaching-learning
situation. This idea was supported by a study on questions
asked by science teachers wherein De la Cruz (1990) found
that teachers questions were predominantly of the memory
type, i.e., the answers to the questions were found in the
text. Another study revealed that teachers questions were
classified as literal comprehension questions (Gocer, 2014).

The comprehension performance of the Grade 8

students on reorganization, evaluation, and appreciation
levels obtained the lowest percentages, respectively. This
seemed to be expected since these are higher-level skills and
need more rigorous processing on the part of the reader. These
comprehension levels need to be addressed during classroom

129
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

instruction and also in a reading remediation program that

may be set up as an offshoot of this study.

Among the five comprehension levels in the Barrett

taxonomy, the reorganization level obtained the lowest
percentage for both narrative and expository texts. Probably,
the participants understood less the questions under this level
presented during the orientation and question-generation
training. This further implies that the students schemata on
its subcategories such as classifying, outlining, summarizing,
and synthesizing may be weak, insufficient, or less focused
on; therefore, they needed to be developed further among the
students. Moreover, the result of the present study slightly
negated the findings of Gocer (2014) that questions were
adequate under the inferential, reorganization, and evaluation
levels. Findings of this study support the inferential level
only of Grocers claim.

As noted, the most prevalent levels of students

comprehension based on the questions they generated on the
expository text were the inferential and literal levels. This
suggests that the participants have already gained adequate
proficiency in literal and inferential comprehension.

A number of significant observations surfaced that

are worth mentioning. These observations were revealing of
the participants background knowledge and their degree of
reading comprehension gauged from the questions generated.
Palma (2006) pointed out and confirmed the importance of
teaching students to activate and reinforce their background
knowledge on the content of the narrative text to be read so
as to enhance their comprehension.

First, the literal and inference level questions were

the most generated types in both narrative and expository
texts. Of special mention were questions on recalling of
details under the literal level and on inferring supporting

130
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

details under the inference level. This occurrence may be

attributed to the fact that the students were well-exposed
to recalling and inferring of supporting details common in
teacher-generated and text/author-generated questions. The
results of the present study confirmed the findings of Aban
(2006) and De la Cruz (1990). They indicated that students
schemata on these subcategories were adequate, that is why
they were able to generate questions along these types.
Santrock (2009) found that readers reconstruct information
which fit into information that already exists in their minds.

In the same manner, the common question patterns

prevalent in the three reading stages, i.e., before reading,
during reading, and after reading, comprised inferring
supporting details and recalling details. Moreover, for both
narrative and expository selections, expectedly, the during
reading stage obtained the highest number of questions
followed by questions generated before and after reading.
This could be attributed to the idea that the participants
generate more questions when they are exposed to more
pieces of information. Moreover, the most prevalent level
of questions asked before, during, and after reading for both
texts were at the inference level. On the other hand, literal
questions were frequently asked on the expository text in the
during reading phase.

Third, most questions formed by student participants

made use of wh-question words. It could be posited that
students were exposed to these kinds of author-generated
questions as well as teacher-generated questions. This may
likewise explain why questions under reorganization were
very few.

Fourth, some questions were intended to monitor the

thinking process. This pertained to metacognition. S ample
student questions illustrating this were as follows: (1) What
do you think could be the other title of the story? (2) Why? (3)

131
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Ano ang nararamdaman ng isang isang bata kapag wala ang

kanyang ina (What does a child feel when the childs mother
is not present?)? (4) Nababawasan ba ang tiwala sa sarili ng
isang bata kung walang suporta ang ina (Does a child feel
inferior and not confident without the mothers support?)?
Questions 2 and 4 sought to monitor the students thoughts
expressed in questions 1 and 3, respectively. Metacognitive
strategies were employed by the participants in generating
these types of questions. These were revealed through the
questions that served to monitor their previous inquiries
or thoughts. They asked for confirmation whether what
they had generated referred to what was actually or really
existing or happening. Sometimes, it was used to obtain
further explanation. This observation found support from
Alder (2001) who elucidated that metacognition is thinking
about thinking wherein students who are good readers would
make use of it by monitoring their understanding, adjusting
their reading speed to fit the difficulty of the text, and fixing
any comprehension problems. This is simply checking their
understanding of what they read via asking questions.

Fifth, schema or background knowledge was

employed by the participants in generating questions
especially before reading the text. This may be due to the
fact that titles provide limited information only for the
participants to process. Therefore, they had to go back to their
stored knowledge in order to generate predictive inquiries
which are also classified as referential questions. However,
this does not mean that schema was not used during and
after reading. Students are presumed to utilize their stored
knowledge consciously or unconsciously when generating
questions before, during, and after reading. The participants
use of schema is rooted on the idea that what already exists
in our minds is used in reconstructing information (Santrock,
2009), and thus, what actually occurs is an interactive process
(Yigiter et. al., 2005).

132
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Lastly, the brief orientation given to students on the

Barrett Taxonomy may have aided them in asking varied
types of questions which would not have occurred if such
exposure were not provided. Some of the questions they were
able to raise appeared to be less evident in queries of teachers
and authors themselves.

It could be interpreted that the student-generated

questions were reflective of their learning and comprehension
which may be traced back to their past experiences. This idea
is grounded on the contention of Yigiter et al. (2005) who
claim that prior knowledge is essential for comprehension;
hence, teachers should help learners build schemata and
make connections between ideas.

Differences and Similarities on Student-Generated

Questions

Questions before reading were analyzed and treated

differently from those generated during and after reading
because pieces of information expressed between them
demonstrate more differences than similarities. For instance,
a question like Saan nangyari ang kwento (Where did the
story happen?)? was categorized as inferring supporting
detail if it was generated before reading. Therefore, it was
classified as an inferential type of question or specifically
inferring of supporting detail. However, it was categorized as
recalling of detail, if it was generated during or after reading.
This was true for both narrative and expository selections.

Other subcategories pertinent to before reading

were predicting outcomes, inferring of main ideas, inferring
character traits, and inferring cause-effect relationship. These
results revealed similarities to the findings during reading
where questions on inferring cause-effect relationship,
inferring character traits, inferring of main ideas, predicting
outcomes, and inferring sequence were demonstrated by the
participants. Apparently, what ranked second before, during,

133
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

and after reading was predicting outcomes, inferring cause-

effect relationship, and inferring main ideas, respectively.

On the evaluation level, student questions before,

during, and after reading exhibited strong similarities.
Questions on judgment of fact or opinion supported this
claim because it ranked first in the three reading stages.

On appreciation level, generated questions before,

during, and after reading summed up to twenty-one only.
This implies that this level needs to be strengthened among
students. Student-generated questions during the three
reading stages demonstrated both similarities and differences.
While the most frequent generated questions before and after
reading were similarly categorized as inferential, queries
during reading were classified as literal.

On the literal level, student questions before

reading were limited only to recalling of details which was
not true of during and after reading because there were
other subcategories that surfaced aside from it. These were
recognizing of details, recalling of sequence, and recalling of
cause-effect relationship.

On the reorganization level, there were no student-

generated questions before and after reading. Only
three questions were generated during reading and were
subcategorized as summarizing.

As to the inferential level, most of the questions

drawn before reading were classified as inferring cause-effect
relationship. This finding was contradicted by the questions
generated during and after reading because inferring of
supporting details type of queries were the most prevalent
in both stages.

On the evaluation level, the most frequent student-

generated questions before, during, and after reading were

134
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

subcategorized as judgment of adequacy and validity.

In addition, student participants were able to generate
questions on judgment of fact or opinion; judgment of worth,
desirability and acceptability; judgment of reality or fantasy;
and judgment of appropriateness.

On the appreciation level, the questions of the

participants showed similarity because most of the queries
asked before, during, and after reading were classified as
identification with character or incidents.

Results revealed that there were no differences in the

questions generated by the students between the narrative and
expository texts in terms of their rank. Findings indicated
that for narrative and expository selections, inference,
literal, evaluation, appreciation and, reorganization levels of
comprehension ranked first, second, third, fourth, and fifth,
respectively.

However, there are differences among the questions

generated between narrative and expository texts. In a
narrative, students were able to formulate queries under
recognizing, recalling, and inferring of character traits. On
the other hand, these subcategories did not surface in an
expository text. This is because a narrative tends to follow
a predictable structure of setting-character-goal/problem-
events-resolution Golding and Long (1991).

Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the research findings obtained, it is safe to conclude
that: (1) students comprehension of texts read can be gauged
via student-generated questions; (2) textual understanding is
fuelled by schemata and metacognitive strategies employed
consciously or unconsciously by participants; (3) the use of
L1 is helpful in determining students level of comprehension
which otherwise would not have surfaced due to students

135
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

inadequacy in expressing their questions in another language

(in this case, English) which they cannot handle with facility;
and (4) the amount of exposure and practice students have
to a taxonomy of comprehension levels can either restrict or
enhance their ability to ask questions.

In this regard, it is recommended that teachers utilize

student-generated questions to advance comprehension of
reading texts; make use of all the levels of comprehension
questions to check understanding of texts read as a means
of enhancing student competence in asking questions. More
exposure to any taxonomy of questions may be employed;
exert a conscious effort to help students gain proficiency
in expressing themselves in English especially in asking
questions; and probe student comprehension by having
students employ their L1 judiciously.

To fortify further the effects of student-generated

questions, the researcher recommends that the school offers
a seminar to teachers in all subject areas on the levels of
comprehension and on the importance of student-generated
questions and implement a reading intervention program
to remedy students comprehension inadequacies based on
an assessment of questions they can generate. In addition,
future researchers may conduct a similar study using other
text types with another level of participants in another
locale as variables; must not use the results of the study for
generalization purposes because the respondents represented
only one section out of the eleven sections of Grade 8
students; and a similar study may likewise be conducted with
focus on listening comprehension.

136
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

References
Aban, L. C. (2006). Instruction on questioning, teaching
style, student question level and achievement in
physics. (Unpublished Thesis). University of the
Philippines.
Abonal, G. R. (1993). Classroom oral questions related to
students and teacher factors in the Ateneo De Naga
High School. S.Y. 1992-1993. Retrieved from http://
rizal.lib.admu.edu.ph/thesis/abstract/The%20E3%20.
A26%2093.pdf.
Adler, C. R., (Ed). 2001. Put reading first: The research
building blocks for teaching children to read (pp. 49-
54). National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publica-
tions/reading_first 1text.html.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A tax-
onomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revi-
sion of Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives.
New York: Longman.
Anderson, R., & Pearson, P. (1984). A schema-theoretic view
of basic processes in reading comprehension. Cham-
paign, Ill.: University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
paign. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.
edu/handle/2142/31284.
Barrett, T. C. (1972). A taxonomy of reading comprehension.
In Reading 360 Monograph. Lexington MA: Ginn, A
Xerox Educational Company.
Buendicho, B. M. (2009). Effects of student-initiated ques-
tions on reasoning ability and geometry achievement.
(Unpublished Thesis). University of the Philippines,
Quezon City
Cayaban-Casela, N. & Cuevas, G. J. (2010). Developing
technical writing skills towards meeting academic

137
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

challenges. Philippines: Books Atbp. Publishing

Corp.
Chin C., (2002). Student-generated questions: Encouraging
inquisitive minds in learning science. Teaching and
Learning, 23(1), 5947. Nanyang Technological Uni-
versity & National Institute of Education.
Columna, M. G. (2013). Grade 3 pupils comprehension
levels in Filipino and English reading tests: A cor-
relational study. (Unpublished Thesis). Philippine
Normal University. Manila.
De la Cruz, T. (1990). An analysis of questions asked by
science teachers. (Unpublished Thesis), Philippine
Normal College, Manila.
Dela Cruz, J. (2004). Development and validation of
interactive instructional materials for reading
comprehension for first year. (Unpublished Thesis).
Philippine Normal University.
Department of Educational Testing and Research Center,
(2009; 2010 & 2011). National Achievement Tests
Results. Department of Education, Philippines.
Gallonosa-Garcia, F. (1994). A sourcebook of questioning
strategies for teachers of English. (Unpublished The-
sis). Philippine Normal University. Manila.
Gocer, A. (2014). The assessment of Turkish written exam-
ination questions based on the text in accordance
with the Barrett taxonomy. International Journal of
Languages Education and Teaching (3). Retrieved
from http://www.academia.edu/8396669/The_As-
sessment_of_Turkish_Written_Examination_Ques-
tions_Based_on_the_Text_In_Accordance_With_
the_Barrett_s_Taxonomy.
Golding, J.M., & Long, D.L. (1996). Narrative represen-
tation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil,

138
 The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of

reading research (Vol. 2) (pp. 171-205). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hansen, J. (1980). The effects of inference training and
practice on young childrens reading comprehen-
sion. Reading Research Quarterly. Retrieved from
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/han-
dle/2142/17851/ctrstreadtechrepv01980i00166_
opt.pdf.
Keys, C. W. (1998). A study of grade six students generating
questions and plans for open-ended science investiga-
tions. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 301-316.
Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2005). Focus on reading comprehen-
sion. Retrieved from www.prel.org/programs/rel/rel.
asp.
Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (1999). Effective literacy instruc-
tion, K-8. (4thed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of
educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Matibag-Angeles, H. (2008). Effects of two types of input
modification and self-questioning on level of students
comprehension of science texts. (Unpublished The-
sis). De La Salle University. Manila.
May, F. B., (1990). Reading as communication: An inter-
active approach. (3rd ed.). Portland State University.
Merrill Publishing Company.
Palma, M. S., (2006). Use of prior knowledge on text con-
tent and structure: Effects on first year high school
students comprehension of the Philippine narrative
texts. (Unpublished Thesis). Ateneo De Manila Uni-
versity.

139
The Normal Lights
Volume 11, No. 1 (2017)

Pangilinan, C. A. (2001). Using open-ended questions for

enhancement of students conceptual understanding.
(Unpublished Thesis). De La Salle University. Ma-
nila.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated com-
prehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. S. Samuels (Eds.),
What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruc-
tion (3rd ed., pp. 291309). Newark DE: International
Reading Association.
Rooks, D. L. (2009).Science for all: Experiences and out-
comes of students with visual impairment in a guid-
ed inquiry-based classroom. The University of Ari-
zona. Retrieved from http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/
doc/304846690.html?FMT=AI.
Santos, M. L. (2004). Formulating questions in mathematics
discourse and student achievement in Algebra.
(Unpublished Thesis), University of the Philippines,
Quezon City
Santrock, J. W. (2009). Educational psychology. (4thed.).
University of Texas at Dallas: Mc GrawHill.
Taboada, A. M. (2003). The association of student
questioning with reading comprehension.University
of Maryland.
Yiiter, K., Saroban, A. & Grses, T. (2005). Reading
strategies employed by ELT leaners at the advanced
level. The Reading Matrix, 5(1)

140