A focus of the Common Core State Standards/English Language Arts (CCSS/ELA) is that students become increasingly more capable with complex text over their school careers. This focus has redirected attention to the measurement of text complexity. While suggesting multiple criteria for this task, the CCSS/ELA offers a single measure of text complexity—Lexiles. Additional quantitative data are available—including the two components of a Lexile rating—that can provide more comprehensive views of text complexity. The two “intra-lexile” measures and two others (referential cohesion and an index of words in a text that are predicted to be “hard.”) are applied to sets of exemplars for grade bands 2–3 and 4–5 within the CCSS/ELA. These analyses suggest that conclusions about text complexity vary considerably when multiple quantitative measures, rather than a single, omnibus index, are used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonR. C., HiebertE. H., ScottJ. A., & WilkinsonI. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Reading.Champaign, IL: The Center for the Study of Reading, National Institute of Education, National Academy of Education.
2.
BeckI. L., McKeownM. G., OmansonR. C., & PopleM. T. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence.Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 263–277.
3.
BettsE. A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction.New York, NY: American Book Company.
4.
California English/Language Arts Committee. (1987). English-Language arts framework for California public schools (kindergarten through grade twelve).Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
5.
CarlisleJ. F., & KatzL. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words.Reading and Writing, 19(7), 669–693.
6.
CarrollJ. B., DaviesP., & RichmanB. (1971). The American Heritage word frequency book.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
7.
ChallJ. S. (1985). Afterword. In AndersonR. C., HiebertE. H., ScottJ. A., & WilkinsonI. A. G. (Eds.), Becoming a nation of readers (pp. 123–125). Champaign, IL: The Center for the Study of Reading, National Institute of Education, National Academy of Education.
8.
ChallJ. S. (1983). Stages of reading development.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
9.
ChallJ. S., & DaleE. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula.Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
10.
CohenS. A., & SteinbergJ. E. (1983). Effects of three types of vocabulary on readability of intermediate grade science textbooks: An application of Finn's transfer feature theory.Reading Research Quarterly, 19(1), 86–101.
11.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.Washington, DC: CCSSO & National Governors Association.
12.
DaleE., & ChallJ. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability and instructions.Educational Research Bulletin, 27, January 21 & February 18, 1948, pp. 11-20, 28, & 37-54.
13.
DeaneP., SheehanK. M., SabatiniJ., FutagiY., & KostinI. (2006). Differences in text structure and its implications for assessment of struggling readers.Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 257–275.
14.
DukeN. K., & Bennett-ArmisteadV. S. (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the primary grades.New York, NY: Scholastic.
15.
FinnP. J. (1978). Word frequency, information theory, and cloze performance: A transfer theory of processing in reading.Reading Research Quarterly, 13(4), 508–537.
16.
GraesserA. C., McNamaraD. S., LouwerseM., & CaiZ. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language.Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202.
17.
GrayW. S., & LearyB. (1935). What makes a book readable? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GreenG., & DavisonA. (Eds.). (1988). Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
HallidayM. A. K., & HasanR. (1976): Cohesion in English.London, UK: Longman.
20.
HiebertE. H. (2002). Standards, assessment, and text difficulty. In FarstrupA.E., & SamuelsS.J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 337–369). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
21.
HiebertE. H. (2005). In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary curriculum for the elementary grades. In HiebertE.H., & KamilM. (Eds.), The teaching and learning of vocabulary: Bringing scientific research to practice (pp. 243–263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
HiebertE. H. (December 8, 2010). The view of text complexity within the Common Core State Standards: What does it mean for struggling readers?Plenary address at the American Research Forum, Sanibel Island, FL.
23.
HiebertE. H. (2011). The Word Zone Profiler.Santa Cruz, CA: Text Project, Inc.
24.
HiebertE. H. (in press). The Common Core State Standards and text complexity. In HougenM., & SmarttS. (Eds.), Becoming an effective literacy teacher: Integrating research and the New Common Core State Standards.Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.
KlareG. (1984). Readability. In PearsonP.D., BarrR., KamilM. L., & MosenthalP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 681–744). New York, NY: Longman.
27.
LeechG., RaysonP., & WilsonA. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English based on The British National Corpus.London, UK: Longman.
28.
LibenD., & LibenM. (April 10, 2011). The emergence of the active ingredients of text: A unique marriage of a quantitative and qualitative research effort. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
29.
LivelyB. A., & PresseyS. L. (1923). A method for measuring the vocabulary burden of textbooks.Educational Administration and Supervision, 9, 389–398.
30.
McNamaraD. S., & KintschW. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence.Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.
31.
McNamaraD. S., GraesserA. C., CaiZ., & KulikowichJ. M. (April 9, 2011). Coh-Metrix easability components: Aligning text difficulty with theories of text comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension.Santa Monica, CA: RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute.
34.
ShareD. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95–129.
35.
SmithD., StennerA. J., HorabinI., & SmithM. (1989). The Lexile scale in theory and practice (Final report). Washington, DC: MetaMetrics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 577)
36.
Texas Education Agency. (1990). Proclamation of the State Board of Education advertising for bids on textbooks.Austin, TX: Author.
37.
ThorndikeE. L. (1921). The teacher's word book.New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
38.
ZenoS. M., IvensS. H., MillardR. T., & DuvvuriR. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide.New York, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
39.
ArnoldT. (2008). Fly high, fly guy.New York, NY: Cartwheel Books.
