As mentioned above, reading comprehension is a vital concept and the main focus of this study. Therefore, a fundamental step in the design of this research study was to explore ways in which variations in reading comprehension can be operationalised and measured. Three main reading comprehension levels (literal, inferential and evaluative) have been widely identified, included and used by various authors and experts in the field (Abu Humos, 2012; Al-Alwan, 2012; Al-Jarf, 2007; Bhatti, 2013; Brassell & Rasinki, 2008; Karlin, 1978; Pearson & Johnson, 1972; Sunggingwati, 2003). Although categorisation and labelling for reading comprehension levels vary from author to author, in essence most of them incorporate similar aspects of reading comprehension. For example, Karlin (1977) claims that reading for meaning involves literal, inferential and critical reading comprehension. Herber (1970) also
developed three level reading guides as a means for improving comprehension that include literal, interpretive and applied comprehension (Morris & Stewart-Dore, 1986). However, Zintz (1970) classified reading comprehension skills in only two categories, literal and interpretive comprehension, and incorporated evaluative skills as part of the interpretive category. In contrast, Pearson and Johnson (1972) proposed a taxonomy that classifies the relation between answer and question, and distinguishes between three types of relation: textually explicit (reading the lines); textually implicit (reading between the lines); and scripturally implicit (reading beyond the lines) comprehension. Overall, it is argued that the active process of reading should move beyond understanding the literal level and include reading and understanding between the lines (making inference) and beyond the lines (critical reading) (DeBoer & Dallmann, 1970).
Barrett‘s (1968) reading comprehension taxonomy, which is one of the taxonomies partially adapted in this study, classified reading comprehension levels as literal, reorganisation, inferential, critical or evaluative and appreciation (as cited in Pearson & Johnson, 1972).
Based on the discussions above, there are various classifications of reading comprehension. However, most of them focused on three main levels including literal, inferential and evaluative levels. Therefore, for the purpose of this study these three main levels of reading comprehension have been chosen and used. Each level is discussed in the following sections.
2.1.3.1 Literal comprehension
Defined by various researchers as the first level of comprehension, literal comprehension refers to the capability of understanding what is stated directly in a text (Durkin, 1976; Fordham, 2006; Karlin, 1978; Morris & Stewart-Dore, 1986; Royer & Cunningham, 1981). It equates to the ability to retell, recognise or recall explicit information
in the text. It is categorised as the lowest level of comprehension and easiest degree of difficulty. In other words, at this level literal comprehension means ―reading of the lines‖ to find what is actually mentioned in the text (Morris & Stewart-Dore, 1986). From Barrett‘s (1967, 1968) taxonomy, the reader needs to apply some comprehension strategies to reach a literal level of comprehension, such as recognising and recalling names of characters and details clearly provided in the text (as cited in Pearson & Johnson, 1972).
2.1.3.2 Inferential comprehension
At the second level of reading comprehension, the reader seeks a higher level of comprehension by inferring the intended meaning of a text. Inferential comprehension refers to the reader‘s ability to comprehend implied meanings (Karlin, 1978; Morris & Stewart- Dore, 1986; Pearson & Johnson, 1972; Royer & Cunningham, 1981). Comprehension at this level is more challenging compared with the literal level, as it requires the reader to resort to prior knowledge to assist in understanding the implied meaning from the text (Brassell & Rasinki, 2008; Karlin, 1978; Royer & Cunningham, 1981). In order to understand implications embedded in the text, the reader needs to combine their own experiences with the explicit information presented (Cameron, 2009; Roe, Stoodt-Hill, & Burns, 2010). As with other levels, the reader applies various comprehension strategies in order make inference from the text. From Barrett‘s (1967, 1968) taxonomy, examples of inferential comprehension strategies are inferring supporting details, identifying main ideas, comparison, cause and effect, predication, drawing conclusions and understanding figurative language (as cited in Latham, 2002; Pearson & Johnson, 1972). At the word level, this translates to inferring words‘ intended meaning from context (Cameron, 2009).
2.1.3.3 Evaluative (Critical) comprehension
1976; A. J. Harris & Sipay, 1979; Karlin, 1978). This level is categorised as the highest level of the comprehension taxonomy and requires increased levels of interaction and comparison between information in the text and the readers‘ prior knowledge (Brassell & Rasinki, 2008; Pearson & Johnson, 1972; Roe et al., 2010). In order to think and read critically, the reader needs to understand what the author is stating and implying in the text; therefore, both literal and interpretative thinking are crucial for critical reading. The readers‘ background information is also an essential factor for critical reading skills (Roe et al., 2010).
Because evaluative comprehension is the hardest to achieve, various authors have identified a wide raft of strategies that can be applied in order to read critically and support students to gain this complex understanding, which must be taught to foster students‘ abilities in evaluating information that is presented to them. These include: from Barrett‘s (1967, 1968) taxonomy, judgment of reality and fantasy; distinguishing and separating between facts and opinions; adequacy and validity, appropriateness, worthiness, and desirability and acceptability (as cited in Pearson & Johnson, 1972); evaluating overstated or unfounded claims, judging emotional responses to what is read, determining the relevance of materials and evaluating the reliability of the author (Zintz, 1970); and lastly, identifying author qualifications, purposes and attitude, noting the currency of the information, determining propaganda and evaluating generalisations (DeBoer & Dallmann, 1970).
Teaching critical reading also includes the following specific strategies: (a) identifying the author‘s conclusion and what the author wants the reader to believe; (b) determining the supporting evidence presented to convince the reader; (c) determining the trustworthiness of the author; and (d) identifying invalid arguments and whether the conclusion derives from the evidence (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997). In addition, a critical reader recognises the author‘s purpose, the use of language, the forms of persuasive writing, questions the content,
evaluates the use of propaganda, evaluates the authors‘ logic and determines if adequate information is included (Roe et al., 2010).
Similar, overlapping strategies that can help readers evaluate and analyse information in the text involve: (a) identifying and evaluating the author‘s purpose in writing the text, and whether it informs, persuades, or entertains, in order to identify why the author wrote the text and, based on this, evaluating the validity of the information (C. Carter, 2013; Dillon, 2007; Flemming, 2009); (b) identifying the tone that is the author‘s feeling or attitude toward the information and topic, as this can affect the text, so the readers‘ ability to recognise the author‘s feelings assists them in evaluating the credibility of information presented (Ammar, 2009; C. Carter, 2013; Dillon, 2007); and (c) identifying intended audiences of the text by analysing the language used, such as vocabulary, terminology and depth of writing (C. Carter, 2013; Dillon, 2007).