part2 diaz text dificulty
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty
1/6
18
October 2007
Leonor Ercillo-Diaz
A closer look attext assessment and
comprehension
How does a teacher choose readingmaterials appropriate for students? Thispaper shares some measures for assessingtext difficulty that consider factors beyond
the usual semantic and syntactic variablesused by readability formulas. Procedures forleveling books are also described.
Introduction
The need to find reading materials at just the
right level makes sense to most teachers. After all,
comprehension is directly related to the
appropriateness and readability of what is being
read. Yet, a dilemma that confronts most teachers isidentifying appropriate texts for their students. We
are all aware that students use their cognitive
resources to construct meaning from what
they read. Yet the reading strategies they
use and the capacities they are equipped
with vary with age, experience and many
other factors that are as significant. While
some teachers may have knowledge of a
variety of tools to assess the type of texts
that they use in reading instruction, the
lingering question is still What else can I
do to assess the difficulty of books or
reading materials that I use in theclassroom? Many procedures, most of
which are research-based, are available for
classroom use. Readability formulas are
popular. While leveling is more modern, it
likewise provides the teacher with other
options. This paper initially examines the
comprehension task for beginning readers
before it presents a brief background of text
assessment. Then, it describes various text
assessment measures that the pre-school and primary
classroom teacher can use. Similarly, it discusses the
determiners of readability and leveling scores andthe strengths of each.
Comprehension and the Task for
Beginning Readers
Comprehension is a complex process that has
been examined in different ways and presented
through a variety of models. Construction of
meaning is attained through the transaction between
the reader and the text (Rosenblatt, 1978). At the
same time that the reader brings a wealth of
experience and knowledge to the actual reading task,
several text features the reader connects with allowmeaning to surface from the literacy event.
In any view of the construction of meaning of
text, the examination of the various processes that
are required to attain successful reading is crucial.
Only by doing this can appropriate texts be
identified and selected for beginning readers.
Leonor Ercillo-Diaz is an Assistant Professor at theCollege of Education, University of the Philippines whereshe handles Teaching in the Early Grades courses. Sheis currently doing her dissertation for a PhD in ReadingEducation degree at the UP Collge of Education.
-
7/29/2019 Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty
2/6
19
PERSPECTIVEErcillo-DiazA closer look at text assessment and comprehension
The task for a beginning reader definitely varies
with that of a more advanced one. Students at
different levels face varied reading tasks. To support
the success of beginning readers, the central,
necessary and interim processes in reading has to be
explored as well (Hiebert, 1999). While
comprehension is a central process in reading at anylevel, necessary processes of reading change as
readers acquire proficiency. Exposure to the
necessary processes of word recognition is to be
considered in providing texts to pre-school and
primary learners. The three processes of word
recognition include applying letter-sound patterns,
recognizing high-frequency words and using the
structures of sentences and texts to confirm
meaning. Attention to all these processes must be
done whether one of these may be highlighted or all
of these are present in a single reading task. The
interim processes of phonemic awareness, letter
naming and concepts of print are subsumed withinthe necessary processes. Thus, for readers who have
become proficient in word recognition, focus on the
interim processes of phonemic awareness and
naming of letters is no longer essential.
The Reader and the Text
Each reader brings a unique repertoire of
characteristics, experiences and knowledge as he or
she interacts with text. The depth and breadth of a
readers background knowledge or schema will most
likely influence the meaning that is derived from thetext. ( Pardo, 2004). It is for this reason that a child
whose prior schema has been activated will be
drawn to a selection with more interest. Likewise,
focus on specific content characteristics in a story is
considered as one feature of an engaging selection.
If a storys theme coincides with a childs own
experiences and context, he or she will gain a better,
if not deeper understanding of the material.
Moreover, the readers social and cultural
background provides aids in the appreciation and
comprehension of a particular text. It was observed
that students who are familiar with European folktales such as Jack and the Beanstalk read a leveled
text fluently and with comprehension as checked
through questions after reading the selection
(Dzaldov and Peterson, 2005). In contrast,
immigrant students in Canada who were not familiar
with such texts exhibited difficulty in understanding
the same passages.
Understanding the reader and the nature of the
reading task are not the only significant elements of
comprehension. The text itself and its features affect
the negotiation of meaning in reading as well. The
structure of the text the vocabulary, the language,
the sentence structures dictates the complexity
level of a certain selection. The theme and genre areboth factors of the text as well. Moreover, the
design, which includes font type and size and
illustrations contribute to the appropriateness of a
selection to a particular set of readers. All of these
features can be identified collectively as surface
features and research has revealed that the
characteristics of the text at the surface level is
significant for effective negotiation of meaning (in
Pardo, 2004).
The above examination of the reader, the nature
of the reading task and significant features of the
text which influence comprehension now leads us tothe next question. How does one select the most
appropriate text that will ensure success in reading?
Reading, in this article, is synonymous to
comprehension for reading without meaning does
not make any sense at all. Most teachers persistently
search for just the right text for their students. It is
now necessary to relate the reader to the text.
An appropriate text for purposes of instruction is
one where the reader can read about 9 out of 10
words and understand the passage with least
difficulty (Clay, 1991). When a child can read 90-95% of the words in a text fluently, then, the text is
at the instructional reading level of the child where
reading will be the most effective. Easier text than
this is considered to be at the childs independent
level. In contrast, a more difficult text is classified
within the childs frustration level. Therefore, this is
not suitable for instructional purposes.
Background of Text Assessment
Text assessment is crucial if readers have to
make meaningful sense of what they read. Teachers
have long known the value of this in readingsuccess. The first known application of this concept
can be traced back to the McGuffy Readers as far
back as 1836 (Hoffman, Sailors & Patterson, 2000;
Fry, 2002). It introduced the first widely used of
leveled texts that featured a simple numerical
ranking. While the grade designation was not
specified, a higher ranking book was considered
-
7/29/2019 Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty
3/6
20
October 2007
more difficult than a lower ranking one. Leveled
texts refer to texts that are graduated in reading
difficulty or challenge level.
Text difficulty, codified as readability, had its
roots in the child-centered principles of Pestalozzi
and Froebel (Pearson, 2001). The rationale behindthe development of the first readability formula in
1923 was to provide children with texts that matched
their interests and developing capacities. Until the
1980s, readability formulas were the guide for the
creation of texts as well as its evaluation (Hiebert,
2002). Text difficulty was established on the basis
of syntactic and semantic complexity. Syntactic
complexity was determined by the number of words
per sentence. In comparison, semantic complexity
focused on the word level. It was measured either by
word familiarity as compared with a list of high-
frequency words or by word difficulty as measured
by the number of syllables per word.
Strict conformity to the use of readability
formulas led to limited content of books that often
used a controlled vocabulary. Studies have shown
that restructured texts that substituted high-
frequency words for less familiar ones changed the
meaning of the text (Hiebert, 2002). Consequently,
the 1980s led to the use of authentic literature
which was deemed more interesting (Fry, 2002).
Advocates for a literature-based approach to reading
instruction advocated for the use of a wider range of
criteria that went beyond the semantic and syntacticdifficulty for appropriate text selection ( Pearson,
2001).
The Reading Recovery program of Marie Clay
was instrumental in the use of leveling books in
schools today (Fry, 2002; (Hiebert, 2002). This
program used early reading intervention for children
who had a high probability of failure. Books with
closely spaced difficulty levels, mainly at the first
and second-grade levels, were used with these
children. The more popular and traditional wide-
range readability formulas were not particularly
sensitive at these levels. Moreover, it gave onlywhole-grade designations at the primary level.
Leveling took into consideration varied and
more text support factors than traditional readability
formulas. Likewise, it provided finer gradations at
the pre-school and primary school level.
Several state guidelines issued in the United
States for their 2000 and 2002 textbook adoptions
(Hiebert, 2002) called for texts at the beginning
stages of reading to contain high percentages of
highly decodable words. However, this did not
address the issue concerning unique or unfamiliar
words that influence text difficulty as well. Thesesignificant features had redirected the concern to
readability formulas once again.
The Lexile system, which is currently the most
popular readability system, claimed that it is not a
readability formula (Hiebert, 2002). However,
Lexiles were derived from the same determiners of
readability as the many other readability measures,
which are syntactic and semantic complexity.
Derived Lexiles from text was then matched to
appropriate grade levels. In addition to Lexile
scores, benchmark literature for every grade level
was provided in finer gradients of Lexiles.Selection of textbooks through the Lexile system
was adopted by a number of states in the USA and
the publishing house of Scholastic started labeling
book covers according to its Lexiles.
A Comparison of Readability and Leveling
Selection of just the right text for students
reading success leads to the concepts of readability
and leveling of books. Readability can be defined as
the assignment of a numerical score to rank reading
materials in order of difficulty. At times, the scorecorresponds to a recommended grade level.
Readability formulas establish text difficulty level
through measures of semantic and syntactic
difficulty.
In contrast, leveling uses various systems in
determining the difficulty of selections. It is less
objective and takes into account some subjective
forms of judgment. Different leveling procedures
consider a different mix of text support factors.
Some systems examine the following: content,
length, format, illustrations, language structure,
judgment and curriculum (Fry, 2002). Contentcenters on the appropriateness or familiarity of the
topic or theme of the story. Length, format and
illustrations are all features of the books design.
Language structure focuses on the simplicity and
flow of the structures used as well as the presence of
repetitive words or phrases. As we can see,
determiners of leveling include surface features of
-
7/29/2019 Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty
4/6
21
PERSPECTIVEErcillo-DiazA closer look at text assessment and comprehension
a selection as reflected in the texts content, length,
format, illustrations and language structure.
Judgment refers to the childs experience and
background as important features in understanding
the text. Finally, curriculum examines the manner in
which the levels are related to teaching methods.
Apparently, leveling takes into account more
text support factors than traditional readability
formulas. Likewise, as mentioned earlier, finer
gradations are provided at the pre-school and
primary level. Therefore, it has a wider appeal to
teachers particularly at these levels. The leveling
system of the Reading Recovery Program covers
Grade 1-Grade 2.9; Fountas & Pinells procedure
levels Grade 1-Grade 3.9; and Weavers spans
Kinder to Grade 6 (Fry, 2002). Use of leveling is
confined to primary classroom and library use in
relation to reading instruction.
Readability measures, in contrast, are objective
and it can yield a huge research base and massive
amounts of work due to the use of a measure that
even a computer can score. Similarly, readability
formulas have a wider range of coverage spanning
Grade One until Grade 12 and even until Grade16
for the New Dale-Chall readability formula (Fry,
2002). Moreover, application of readability formulas
goes beyond the walls of the classroom. It is used in
varied text formats, which includes military training
materials, simple-language laws, contracts and
newspaper articles (Fry, 2002). A summary of thecomparison between readability and leveling is
shown in Figure 1.
Recent Methods of Establishing Text Difficulty
Hiebert (2002) examined voluminous literature
to determine recent perspectives on text difficulty.
The four systems yielded from this research are
outlined below. This is followed by constructs
identified as critical in the evaluation of beginningreading texts as developed by Menon & Hiebert
(1999).
Hoffman and his colleagues (Hiebert, 2002)
developed three measures in analyzing texts which
includes engagingness, predictability and
decodability. Engagingness examines the content of
texts, the sophistication of language of text and the
design of the texts. Predictability focuses on an
analysis of characteristics that make texts more
predictable to children. These refer to the repeated
patterns, familiar concepts, rhyme, rhythm and
cumulative patterns in texts. Finally, decodabilityconsiders the presence of common, easily decodable
words.
Another perspective on establishing text
difficulty was examined by Stein and his team
(Hiebert, 2002). It focused on potential for accuracy
which evaluated the correlation between the
elements of words in student materials and the
guidance on teaching these words by the teacher in
the initial stages of reading. It is interested in the
potential that children had to accurately decode text
as a function of instruction.The goal of the Text Elements by Task was to
identify variables that influenced the difficulty of the
task presented by texts. (Hiebert, 2002). The critical
Figure 1. Readability Formulas and Leveling Scores: A Comparison
Readability Formulas Leveling Scores
Definition A numerical score is given to rank readingmaterials in order of difficulty. Sometimes thisscore corresponds to a recommended gradelevel
Various systems are used to determine thedifficulty of books. Exemplar texts are providedfor every level. It is less objective and takes intoaccount some subjective forms of judgment.
Determiners Syntactic difficulty: No. of words per
sentence or sentence length Semantic complexity: measured by either
word familiarity or word difficulty (no. ofsyllables per word)
Takes into account text support factors:
Content Illustrations Length Curriculum Language Structure Judgment Format
Strengths Can do massive amounts of work which canyield a large research base
Objective & consistent that any person orcomputer will get the same score
Wider range of v\coverage : Grades 1-12/16
Takes into accent more text support factorsthan traditional readability formulas
Provides finer gradations I the primary levels Has wide appeal to teachers, particularly at
the primary &b remedial levels
-
7/29/2019 Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty
5/6
22
October 2007
word factor (CWF) was proposed by Hiebert and her
colleagues as an indicator of the task demands for
recognizing words in primary-level texts. The CWF
indicated the number of words that will be difficult
in a text when measured against a curriculum. To
determine the number of unique words per 100,
extended samples from texts were used.
The unique words were examined further to
discover the numbers that lie outside the high-
frequency curriculum. From the final list of words,
more analysis was done to look into phonic or
syllabic patterns that are beyond a specific levels
curriculum. Thus, a single text can yield a number of
CWFs depending on the curriculum against which it
is assessed.
Text Leveling refers to the assignment of texts
as points of reference for particular grade levels.
This is done by experts in childrens literature or inreading processes (Hiebert, 2002). The Reading
Recovery levels and the levels of guided reading
developed by Fountas and Pinnell investigated four
dimensions, namely: book and print features
length, illustration, punctuation, layout & font;
content, themes and ideas; text structure and
language; and literacy elements.
According to the model of text and reading
acquisition, guidelines for the evaluation of
beginning reading texts should include
engagingness, accessibility and generalizability(Menon & Hiebert, 1999). Text design, content and
language are all considered as elements influencing
the engagingness of text. Text accessibility is
defined in terms of the total amount of text, the total
number of unique words which is an indication of
the vocabulary load of the material, and the
repetition of words within and across the texts of a
particular program or curriculum. This is based on
the assumption that the frequency by which words
are repeated will more likely impact the level of
ease/difficulty by which these words will be learned.
The last construct of generalizability examines the
presence of high-frequency words and decodability.
In comparison to guidelines previously
mentioned, Hoffman and his colleagues (2001)
identified three major categories viewed as
important in leveled texts namely: instruction
design, accessibility and engaging qualities.
Instruction design describes the significance of text
that provides repeated practice with words and with-
word patterns. This is seen as critical to the
development of decoding abilities. The development
of automaticity in reading is supported by frequent
instantiations of patterns in a variety of contexts.
These instantiations may be contained in the form of
high-frequency words or of repeated common rimes(e.g. at, -ig, -up). Next, accessibility, in this
framework, considers both the degree of decoding
demands placed on the reader to recognize words in
the text. Likewise, it looks into extra supports
around the words which assist the reader.
Accessibility features of text include decodability
and predictability. Decodability focuses on the word
level and reflects the use of high frequency words as
well as words that are regular in terms of its phonic
pattern. Predictability is determined by the linguistic
and design support for the identification of difficult
words. Engaging qualities of text focuses on exactly
the same constructs for the evaluation of text as thatof Hieberts, which are content, language and
design.
A comparison of the perspectives on text
difficulty by Hiebert et al (2002)and Hoffman
(2001) will show similarities especially in the
construct of engagingness. However, they have
different definitions of accessibility. The
accessibility construct of Hoffman which partly
refers to decodability is the generalizability element
according to Menon & Hiebert (2005) . Hoffmans
definition is more encompassing since it coverslinguistic and design support (predictability) for the
identification of difficult words aside from
decodability. Further, the text accessibility focus of
Menon & Hiebert partly refers to the instructional
design construct of Hoffman. Regardless of the
overlaps in definition or the differences in the use of
terms, the elements of both perspectives in text
difficulty are worth considering for actual classroom
use.
In Focus: A Canadian Leveling System
A book leveling system developed in oneCanadian school district is worth presenting here.
This is a result of an examination of over a hundred
trade books and literacy materials which were sorted
into a 10-step leveling system for beginning reading
instruction (Rog & Burton, 2000). The levels do not
correspond to grade levels though. Five features that
were taken into account include: vocabulary, size
-
7/29/2019 Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty
6/6
23
PERSPECTIVEErcillo-DiazA closer look at text assessment and comprehension
and layout of print, predictability, illustration
support, and complexity. Results of the research
describe in great detail what books look like at each
level and the reading strategies that children need to
bring to attain reading success at each level.
Features considered in this study were the ones
mentioned in the previous sections.
Particularly interesting is the detail with which it
describes print. At the lower levels, there should be
consistent text placement in every page. Progression
from one line text to more lines should take place
gradually. In fact, initial presentation of sentences
should be one liners. Sentences chopped to be
represented as two lines come in the later levels.
Sentence structures progress from words to phrases
to choppy repetitive sentences until more complex
sentence structures are evident in the later stages.
Scaffolding Book Selection : BOOKMATCH
The book selection criteria presented here
empower primary level students to choose
appropriate books for independent reading.
BOOKMATCH is an acronym which aims to
scaffold book selection among children (Wutz &
Wendick, 2005). It presents questions to students
under each of the following criteria:
B ook Length
O rdinary Language
O rganizationK nowledge prior to the book
M anageable Text
A ppeal to the genre
T opic Appropriateness
C onnection
H igh Interest
Reflection on these important factors which
affect reading comprehension will definitely lead to
self-directed readers. Discussions about each point
above are done with the teacher and classmates as
well. This is extended to a post-reading analysisbased on the criteria that are used before reading the
story. Comprehension is attained and independent
reading is nurtured.
A Final Note
Matching books to readers cannot be reduced to
a formula. Developers of readability formulas are
aware that these have limitations and these do not
take into account other important textual factors that
affect comprehension. Likewise, they do notconsider significant aspects as what occurs in the
readers mind to arrive at meaning. Readability
formulas are simply text-based. Leveling attempts to
address part of this limitation. Informed decisions
about just the right text for students must take into
account knowledge about the students, books, recent
research on text difficulty, and the nature of the
reading process, especially for beginning readers.
The professional judgment of the teacher finds its
place here. Enriching ones framework of text
assessment and using this knowledge in the
classroom can definitely lead to effective
comprehension among our students.
Selected References
Dzaldov, . S. & S. Peterson (2005). Book leveling and
readers. In The Reading Teacher, 59, 222-228.
Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling. In The ReadingTeacher, 56, 286-291.
Hiebert, E. (1999). Selecting texts for beginning reading
instruction (CIERA Report). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for theImprovement of Early Reading Achievement, University of
Michigan School of Education. Available online:
http://www.ciera.org
Hiebert, E. (2002) Standards, assessments, and text difficulty.In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.) What Research Has to
Say About Reading Instruction, 3rd ed. (pp. 337-369)
Hoffman, J.V., et al (2001) Text Leveling & Little Books inFirst-Grade Reading. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the
Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University ofMichigan School of Education. Available online:
http://www.ciera.org.
Menon, S., & Hiebert, E.H. (2005). A comparison of first
graders' reading with little books or literature-based basalanthologies. InReading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 1238.
Pardo, L.S. (2004) What every teacher needs to know about
comprehension, The Reading Teacher, 58, 272-280.
Pearson, P.D. (2001). Reading in the Twentieth Century,CIERA Online, Retrieved August, 8, 2007 fromhttp://www.ciera.org/lbraray/archive/2001-08/200108.htm
Rog. L.J. & Burton, W. (2002) Matching texts and readers:
Leveling early reading materials for assessment &instruction, The Reading Teacher, 56, 348-356.
Wutz, J.A. & Wedwick, L. (2005) BOOKMATCH:
Scaffolding book selection for independent reading. In TheReading Teacher, 59, 16-3