Current methods of textbook evaluation have not led to changes necessary for enhancing the comprehension of diverse learners. These methods have failed to highlight three important comprehensibility features of textbook writing: familiarity, interestingness, and structural coherence. In this article present an evaluation technique that uses graphic organziers to represent textbook material so that it can be evaluated according to these three features. I review relevant research, show how to represent two sixth-grade social studies textbooks graphically, and discuss how publishers, state adopters, district selectors, and classroom teachers could use the technique to improve textbook materials for all students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Content area textbooks. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tiecney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts (pp. 193–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Meyer, J. L. (1991). Improving content-area reading using instructional graphics. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 393–416.
3.
Armbruster, B. B., Osborn, J. H., & Davison, A. L. (1985, April). Readability formulas may be dangerous toyour textbooks. Educational Leadership, 42, 18–20.
4.
Baumann, J. F. (1986). Effect of rewritten content textbook passages on middle grade students' comprehension of main ideas: Making the inconsiderate considerate. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 1–21.
5.
Birkmire, D. P. (1985). Text processing: The influence of text structure, background knowledge, and purpose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 314–326.
6.
Calfee, R. C., & Chambliss, M. J. (1987). Structural design features of large texts. Educational Psychologist, 22, 357–378.
7.
Calfee, R., Chambliss, M., & Beretz, M. (1991). Organizing for comprehension and composition. In W. Ellis (Ed.), All language and the creation of literacy (pp. 79–93). Baltimore: Orton Dyslexia Society.
8.
Cangeni, J. A. (1986). The world: Holt social studies. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.
9.
Chambliss, M. J. (1992). Assessing instructional materials: How comprehensible are they? In C. Gordon & G. Labercane (Eds.). Elementary reading and instruction: Process and practice (pp. 319–341). Needham, MA: Ginn Press.
10.
Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1989). Designing science textbooks to enhance student understanding. Educational Psychologist, 24, 307–322.
11.
Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (in press). Textbooks for learning: Nurturing children's minds.Cambride, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
12.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
13.
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 21, 11–20, 37–54.
14.
Danner, F. W. (1976). Children's understanding of intersentence organization in the recall of short descriptive passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 174–183.
15.
Davison, A., & Kantor, R. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 187–209.
16.
Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 109–118.
17.
Dole, J., Rogers, T., & Osborn, J. (1989). Improving the textbook selection process: Case studies of the textbook adoption guidelines project (Tech. Rep. No. 478). Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.
18.
Farr, R., & Tulley, M. A. (1985, March). Do adoption committees perpetuate mediocre textbooks?Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 467–471.
19.
Freebody, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277–294.
20.
Fry, E. B. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513–516.
21.
Garner, R., Alexander, P. A., Gillingham, M. G., Kulikowich, J. M., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 643–659.
22.
Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing inadults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41–57.
23.
Graves, M. F., Prenn, M. C., Earle, J., Thompson, M., Johnson, V., & Slater, W. H. (1991). Commentary: Improving instructional text: Some lessons learned. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 110–122.
24.
Hare, V. C., Rabinowitz, M., & Schieble, K. M. (1989). Text effects on main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 72–88.
25.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465–483.
26.
Horton, S. V., & Lovitt, T. C. (1989). Construction and implementation of graphic organizers for academically handicapped and regular secondary students. Academic Therapy, 24, 625–640.
27.
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, C. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 12–22, 29.
28.
Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Christensen, C. (1991). Notetaking from textbooks: Effects of a columnar format for three categories of secondary students. Exceptionality, 2, 19–40.
29.
Lovitt, T. C., & Horton, S. V. (1991). Adapting textbooks for mildly handicapped adolescents. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 439–471). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
30.
Lovitt, T. C., Horton, S. V., & Bergerud, O. (1987). Matching students with textbooks: An alternative to readability formulas and standardized tests. British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 11(1), 49–55.
31.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. H., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.
32.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 121–143.
33.
Muther, C. (1985, April). What every textbook evaluator should know. Educational Leadership, 42, 4–8.
34.
Richgels, D. J., McGee, L. M., Lomax, R. G., & Sheard, C. (1987). Awareness of four text structures: Effects on recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 177–196.
35.
Schank, R. C. (1979). Interesting: Controlling inferences. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 273–297.
36.
Smith, P. L., & Friend, M. (1986). Training learning disabled adolescents in a strategy for using text structure to aid recall of instructional prose. Learning Disabilities Research, 2(1), 38–44.
37.
Taylor, B. M., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children's use of text structure in the recall of expository material. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 517–528.
38.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
40.
Tyson, H. (1991). Possibility amid indignation. Basic Education/A Monthly Forum for Analysis and Comment, 36(1), 7–10.
41.
Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America's textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: The Council for Basic Education.
42.
Whittaker, A. (1993). Constructing science knowledge from exposition: The effects of text structure training (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 3157A.
43.
Williams, J. P., Taylor, M. B., & Granger, S. (1981). Text variations at the level of the individual sentence and the comprehension of simple expository paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 851–865.
44.
Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 404–425.
45.
Wong, B. Y. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 477–482.
46.
Wong. I. (1992). The role of explanatory texts in students' learning of science concepts (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 3209A.
47.
Wong, I., & Calfee, R. C. (1988, April). Informational trade books: A viable alternative to textbooks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
