An Exploration of Text Difficulty and Knowledge Support on Adolescents' Comprehension

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to determine whether easy or challenging versions of texts, when accompanied by different types of instructional support, improved adolescents' reading comprehension, particularly for students with below‐average reading comprehension. The authors examined 293 ninth‐grade students' reading comprehension of 24 leveled texts over a 12‐week intervention in which teachers were randomly assigned to one of two instructional strategies prior to reading: K‐W‐L or Listen‐Read‐Discuss. Students were randomly assigned within classes to read either easy or challenging versions of the texts, and students' text comprehension was assessed after each lesson. General comprehension was assessed before and after the intervention using the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Comprehension subtest. The authors analyzed the texts using Lexile Analyzer, Coh‐Metrix Text Easability Assessor, and TextEvaluator to compare aspects of concreteness, formality of language, cohesion, and familiarity across versions. Findings revealed that comprehension of the easy and challenging versions was similar for most students, but students in the K‐W‐L classrooms outperformed students in the Listen‐Read‐Discuss classrooms. Only a small subset of students who read significantly below average, many of whom were identified as English learners, benefited from reading the easier versions. The Coh‐Metrix and TextEvaluator tools indicated that the easier texts had more familiar vocabulary, greater lexical cohesion, fewer academic vocabulary words, and a more conversational tone, but similar grammatical cohesion and concreteness of words. The results suggest that most students, even if struggling with comprehension, can read challenging versions of texts when accompanied by instructional support.

Rethinking the Role of Knowledge in the Literacy Classroom

“…However, it should be noted that K‐W‐L can be implemented in a variety of ways with varying results, as demonstrated through empirical research studies. Specifically, K‐W‐L seems to be more effective when students are engaged in meaningful conversations about text topics (Lupo, Tortorelli, Invernizzi, Ryoo, & Strong, 2019) instead of independently considering and writing down their prior topic knowledge (Hattan, 2019). In fact, when conducted through whole‐class discussions, K‐W‐L was found to be more effective than a knowledge‐building approach (Lupo et al, 2019).…”

“…Specifically, K‐W‐L seems to be more effective when students are engaged in meaningful conversations about text topics (Lupo, Tortorelli, Invernizzi, Ryoo, & Strong, 2019) instead of independently considering and writing down their prior topic knowledge (Hattan, 2019). In fact, when conducted through whole‐class discussions, K‐W‐L was found to be more effective than a knowledge‐building approach (Lupo et al, 2019). Further, variations of K‐W‐L may be more effective for older students (Hattan & Alexander, 2018, Lupo et al, 2019) rather than younger students (Hattan, 2019; Stahl, 2008) or when students have more prior topic knowledge (Hattan & Alexander, 2018).…”

“…In fact, when conducted through whole‐class discussions, K‐W‐L was found to be more effective than a knowledge‐building approach (Lupo et al, 2019). Further, variations of K‐W‐L may be more effective for older students (Hattan & Alexander, 2018, Lupo et al, 2019) rather than younger students (Hattan, 2019; Stahl, 2008) or when students have more prior topic knowledge (Hattan & Alexander, 2018). However, there is a need for additional research on knowledge activation and K‐W‐L specifically, especially with younger learners.…”

Improving Reading Comprehension of Informational Text: Text Structure Instruction for Students With or At Risk for Learning Disabilities

“…In addition, teachers should consider whether the text will motivate and engage students by containing elements of cultural relevancy, offering different perspectives on issues, or making connections to real-world events (Leko, Mundy, Kang, & Datar, 2013). Although it may be tempting to use a readability level as the indicator of a text’s appropriateness, readability alone does not fully capture the complexity of a text (Reed & Kershaw-Herrera, 2016; Lupo, Tortorelli, Invernizzi, Ryoo, & Strong, 2019). Rather, teachers need to combine quantitative indicators of a text’s difficulty with qualitative indicators, such as the demands that the text places on students’ background knowledge, the density of the information presented, and the use of abstract or figurative language (Pearson & Hiebert, 2013).…”

Impact of literacy across content on middle school students' reading comprehension in a rural context

“…Lexile scores are based on students' reading passages within the stretch band and correctly answering grade‐level standards‐based questions. Lexile scores are calculated, among others, as a function of vocabulary and sentence complexity (Lupo, Tortorelli, Invernizzi, Riyoo, & Strong, 2019). Factors shown to influence reading comprehension include the extent to which texts use words and ideas that are concrete versus abstract, use of formal versus more colloquial language, and text cohesion (Arya, Hiebert, & Pearson, 2011; Sadoski, 2001).…”