Textbooks used for content area subjects are often too difficult for mainstreamed students. Teachers may have to adapt the text to reduce readability and conceptual difficulty. Simplifying text involves attention to content, sentence structure, and vocabulary. Guidelines drawn from psycholinguistic research are presented to assist the teacher in this task. An example of simplified text is included.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Campbell, A.How readability formulae fall short in matching student to text in content areas. Journal of Reading, 22, 683–689, 1979.
2.
Carpenter, P.A., & Just, M.A.Integrative processes in comprehension. In D. Laberge & J.S. Samuels (Eds.) Basic processes in reading: Perception and Comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum Assoc. Publ., 1972.
3.
Cattell, N.R.The new English grammar: A descriptive introduction. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1969.
4.
Charry, L.B.Controlling readability factors in teacher made materials. In B.S. Smith (Ed.) Teachers, tangibles, techniques: Comprehension of content in reading. Newark, Del.: IRA, 1975.
5.
Clark, H.H., & Clark, E.V.Psychology and language. An introduction to psycholinguisticsNew York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977.
6.
Coleman, E.B.The comprehensibility of several grammatical transformations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 186–190, 1964.
7.
Coleman, L.Using readability data for adapting curriculum materials. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 14, 163–169, 1979.
Evans, R.V.The effect of transformational simplification of the reading comprehension of selected high school students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5, 273–278, 1972–1973.
10.
Forgan, H. & Mangrum, C.T.Teaching content area reading skills. A modular preservice and inservice program. Columbus, Ohio: Carles E. Merrill Pub. Co., 1976.
11.
Frase, L. T.Paragraph organization of written materials. The influence of conceptual clustering upon the level and crganizotion of recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 394–401, 1969.
12.
Frase, L.T.Maintenance and control in the acquisition of knowledge from written materials. In J. B. Carroll and R. O. Freedle (Eds.) Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge, Washington, D.C.: V. H. Winston, 1972.
13.
Gibson, F., & Levin, H.The psychology of reading, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1976.
14.
Greene, J. G., & Noreen, D. L.Time to read semantically related sentences. Memory and Cognition, 2, 117–120, 1974.
15.
Jacobs, R. A., & Rosenbaum, P.S.English transformational grammar with annotated bibliography, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968.
16.
Johnson, R. E., & Vardin, E. B.Reading, readability and social studies. Reading Teacher, 26, 483–488, 1973.
17.
Levin, H., Grossman, J., Kaplan, E., & Yang, R.Contraints and the eye-voice span in right and left embedded sentences. Language & Speech, 15, 30–39, 1972.
18.
Lunstrum, J. P.Reading in the social studies, A Preliminary analysis of recent research. Social Education, 40, 10–18, 1976.
19.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. L.Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103, 1980.
20.
Montague, R. B., & Hess, A. M.Verbal vs. imagery encoding in good and poor readers: Evidence from word and sentence recognition data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associaiton, Toronto, Canada, 1978.
21.
Ogden, C. K.The general basic English dictionary, London, England: Evans Brothers, 1970.
22.
Otto, J. H., Towle, A., & Madnick, M. E.Modern biology, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winton, 1977.
23.
Paivio, A.Imagery and verbal processes, New York: Holt & Company, 1971.
24.
Pearson, P. D.The effects of grammatical complexity in children's comprehension, recall and conception of certain semantic relations. In H. Singer, and R. B. Ruddell (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading, 2nd edition. Newark, Del: IRA, 1976.
25.
Review text in earth science, New York: Amsco School Pub., 1976.
26.
Ruddell, R. B.,The effect of the similarity of oral and written patterns of language structure on reading comprehension, Elementary English, 1964, 42, 403–410.
27.
Smith, W. L.The controlled instrument procedure for studying the effect of syntactic cophistication in reading: A second study. Journal of Reading Behavior, 5, 242–238, 1972–1973.
28.
Social Science Reader, Pleasantville, N.Y., Reader's Digest Services, 1974.
29.
Weinberg, S.Biology, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966.
30.
Wiig, E. H., & Semel, E. M.Language assessment and intervention for the learning disabled. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Pub. Co., 1980.
