Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty

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.


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


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


4/6

21


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


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


6/6

23


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

Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty

Documents

Transcript of Part2 Diaz Text Dificulty