18

Leonor Ercillo-Diaz

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 is identifying 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 the classroom? 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 and the 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 allow meaning 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.

A closer look at text assessment and comprehension

How does a teacher choose reading materials appropriate for students? This paper shares some measures for assessing text difficulty that consider factors beyond the usual semantic and syntactic variables used by readability formulas. Procedures for leveling books are also described.

Leonor Ercillo-Diaz is an Assistant Professor at the College of Education, University of the Philippines where she handles Teaching in the Early Grades courses. She is currently doing her dissertation for a PhD in Reading Education degree at the UP Collge of Education.

October 2007

19

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 any level, 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 within the 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 the text. ( 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 folk tales 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 are both 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 to the 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 9095% 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 reading success. 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

Ercillo-DiazA closer look at text assessment and comprehension

PERSPECTIVE

20

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 behind the 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 highfrequency 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 highfrequency 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 syntactic difficulty 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 widerange readability formulas were not particularly sensitive at these levels. Moreover, it gave only whole-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. These significant 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 score corresponds 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). Content centers 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

October 2007

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 the comparison 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 beginning reading 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, decodability considers 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 Definition Readability Formulas A numerical score is given to rank reading materials in order of difficulty. Sometimes this score corresponds to a recommended grade level Syntactic difficulty: No. of words per sentence or sentence length Semantic complexity: measured by either word familiarity or word difficulty (no. of syllables per word) Leveling Scores Various systems are used to determine the difficulty of books. Exemplar texts are provided for every level. It is less objective and takes into account some subjective forms of judgment. Takes into account text support factors: Content Illustrations Length Curriculum Language Structure Judgment Format Takes into accent more text support factors than traditional readability formulas Provides finer gradations I the primary levels Has wide appeal to teachers, particularly at the primary &b remedial levels PERSPECTIVE

Determiners

Strengths

Ercillo-DiazA closer look at text assessment and comprehension

Can do massive amounts of work which can yield a large research base Objective & consistent that any person or computer will get the same score Wider range of v\coverage : Grades 1-12/16

22

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 highfrequency 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 in reading 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 withword 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 that of 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 covers linguistic 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 one Canadian 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

October 2007

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 rganization K 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 analysis based 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 not consider 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 Reading Teacher, 56, 286-291. Hiebert, E. (1999). Selecting texts for beginning reading instruction (CIERA Report). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement 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 in First-Grade Reading. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan 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 basal anthologies. In Reading 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 from http://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 The Reading Teacher, 59, 16-3

Ercillo-DiazA closer look at text assessment and comprehension

PERSPECTIVE