Educators and researchers have been interested in supporting sentence-level language comprehension for struggling readers, but it has been challenging to research. To investigate the properties of sentences that might be useful targets for future research in instruction and assessment, we coded several features of the items in a computer-adaptive scale of sentence comprehension. The Syntactic Knowledge Task is designed for students in Grades 3–10. We then explored how the features of the sentences were related to the item’s difficulty value to determine which aspects of sentence-level language made sentences more and less challenging for students across a range of development. We found that genre, words that represent a logical connection, number of idea units, long words, and words on the Academic Word List were significantly associated with item difficulty. Implications for understanding students’ sentence-level language development are discussed.
AbbottR. D.BerningerV. W.FayolM. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318
2.
AdlofS. M.HoganT. P. (2019). If we don’t look, we won’t see: Measuring language development to inform literacy instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219839075
3.
AndreevL.UccelliP. (2024). The secret life of connectives: A taxonomy to study individual differences in mid-adolescents’ use of connectives in writing to persuade. Reading and Writing, 37, 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10425-3
4.
BiberD.GrayB.StaplesS. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059
5.
BrimoD.ApelK.FountainT. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12050
6.
BrimoD.LundE.SappA. (2018). Syntax and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of different spoken-syntax assessments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53(3), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12362
7.
CabellS. Q.HwangH. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(Suppl. 1), S99–S107. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338
8.
CainK.NashH. M. (2011). The influence of connectives on young readers’ processing and comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022824
9.
Carrow-WoolfolkE. (2008). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. American Guidance Service.
10.
CobbT. (2021). Web VP Classic [an adaptation of Heatley, Nation & Coxhead’s (2002) Range]. http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/
CrossleyS. A.YangH. S.McNamaraD. S. (2014). What’s so simple about simplified texts? A computational and psycholinguistic investigation of text comprehension and text processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10125/66686
13.
CrossonA. C.LesauxN. K. (2013). Connectives: Fitting another piece of the vocabulary instruction puzzle. The Reading Teacher, 67(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1197
FitzgeraldJ.RelyeaJ. E.ElmoreJ. (2022). Academic vocabulary volumn in elementary grades disciplinary textbooks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1257–1276. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000735
16.
FoormanB. R.KoonS.PetscherY.MitchellA.TruckenmillerA. (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th–10th grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 884–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000026
17.
FoormanB. R.PetscherY.HerreraS. (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1–10. Learning and Individual Differences, 63, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011
GoodwinA. P.AhnS. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
21.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.AdkinsM. (2018). The impact of supplemental handwriting and spelling instruction with first grade students who do not acquire transcription skills as rapidly as peers: A randomized control trial. Reading and Writing, 31(6), 1273–1294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9822-0
22.
GuthrieJ.SeifertM.BurnhamN. A.CaplanR. I. (1974). The Maze Technique to assess and monitor reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 28(2), 161–168. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20193704
23.
HallidayM. A. K.MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Taylor & Francis.
24.
HammillD. D.LarsenS. C. (2009). Test of written language: TOWL4. Pro-ed.
25.
HwangH.CabellS. Q.JoynerR. E. (2022). Does cultivating content knowledge during literacy instruction support vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary school years? A systematic review. Reading Psychology, 44, 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2022.2141397
26.
HwangH.McMasterK. L.KendeouP. (2022). A longitudinal investigation of directional relations between domain knowledge and reading in the elementary years. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.481
27.
HylandK. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
28.
JagaiahT.OlinghouseN. G.KearnsD. M. (2020). Syntactic complexity measures: Variation by genre, grade-level, students’ writing abilities, and writing quality. Reading and Writing, 33, 2577–2638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10057-x
29.
KintschW. (2013). Revisiting the construction–integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In AlvermanmD. E.UnrauN. J.RuddellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). International Reading Association.
LeeY.De La PazS. (2021). Writing scientific explanations: Effects of a cognitive apprenticeship for students with LD and English learners. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 458–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921999310
32.
McNamaraD. S.GraesserA. C.McCarthyP. M.CaiZ. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
33.
MertlerC. A.ReinhartR. V. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (6th ed.). Routledge.
34.
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
35.
OlinghouseN. G.WilsonJ. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65.
36.
PearsonP. D.CervettiG. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and practice. In HiebertE. H.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Research-based practices for teaching common core literacy (pp. 1–24). Teachers College Press.
37.
ReedD.PetscherY.TruckenmillerA. J. (2017). The contribution of general reading ability to science achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.158
38.
RichardsT.PeverlyS.WolfA.AbbottR.TanimotoS.ThompsonR.NagyW.BerningerV. (2016). Idea units in notes and summaries for read texts by keyboard and pencil in middle childhood students with specific learning disabilities: Cognitive and brain findings. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(3), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.005
39.
SaddlerB.Ellis-RobinsonT.Asaro-SaddlerK. (2018). Using sentence combining instruction to enhance the writing skills of children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16(2), 191–202.
40.
SarmientoC. M.TruckenmillerA. J.ChoE.WangH. (2022). Academic language use in middle school informational writing [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/umt7w
41.
SchmalhoferF.McDanielM. A.KeefeD. (2002). A unified model for predictive and bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 33(2), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3302_01
TownsendD.FilippiniA.CollinsP.BiancarosaG. (2012). Evidence for the importance of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/663301
44.
TruckenmillerA. J.PetscherY. (2020). The role of academic language in written composition in elementary and middle school. Reading and Writing, 33, 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09938-7
45.
UccelliP.BarrC. D.DobbsC. L.GallowayE. P.MenesesA.SánchezE. (2015). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1077–1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641400006X
46.
WainerH.MislevyR. J. (2000). Item response theory, item calibration, and proficiency estimation. Computerized Adaptive Testing: A Primer (2nd ed.). Routledge.
