Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 2191–2210 | Cite as

Simplifying informational text structure for struggling readers

  • Barbara Arfé
  • Lucia Mason
  • Inmaculada Fajardo
Article
First Online:
  • 417 Downloads

Abstract

Direct instruction of reading strategies, such as the ‘structure strategy’, is demonstrated to be effective for the development of more mature and skilled reading processes in struggling readers. This instructional intervention approach, aimed at directly improving reading ability, can be used in combination with text simplification. Text simplification is the modification of the text in order to make it more understandable or readable for target groups of readers. In this article, we discuss a theoretically-driven text simplification approach, inspired by cognitive models of reading comprehension. Differently from classical approaches to linguistic text simplification, the aim of cognitive text simplification is not simply to reduce the linguistic complexity of the text, but to improve text coherence and the structure of information in the text. This can be achieved by using rhetorical devices, like signaling or discourse markers, which specify relationships among ideas at a global level (macrostructural) and work as processing instructions for the reader, scaffolding reading comprehension. The goal of this paper is to discuss, in light of the literature, the effectiveness of these adaptations for improving struggling readers’ understanding and learning from informational texts.

Keywords

Struggling readers Text simplification Text structure Coherence Informational text 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Psychiatry Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatry Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arfé, B., Oakhill, J., & Pianta, E. (2014). Text simplification in TERENCE. In T. Di Mascio, R. Gennari, P. Vittorini, R. Vicari, & F. De la Prieta (Eds.), Methodologies and intelligent Systems for technology enhanced learning. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 292, pp. 165–172). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Arfé, B., Oakhill, J., & Pianta, E. (2016) Text simplification and its effects on young poor readers. ELN (European Literacy Network) COST IS140 meeting, Nicosia, Cyprus, 4–5 November 2016.Google Scholar
  4. Bamberg, M. (1987). The acquisition of narratives. Learning to use language. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin, R. (2012). Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buell, S. (2015). A commentary on “First-hand experience of accessible information”. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 20, 88–91. doi: 10.1108/TLDR-12-2014-0042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683–696. doi: 10.1348/0007099056x67610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cain, K., Patson, N., & Andrews, L. (2005). Age- and ability-related differences in young readers’ use of conjunctions. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 877–892. doi: 10.1017/s0305000905007014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2009). Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 246–251. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, J., Minnen, G., Pearce, D., Canning, Y., Devlin, S., & Tait, J. (1999). Simplifying text for language-impaired readers. In Proceedings of the 9th conference of the European chapter of the ACL (EACL’99), Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  13. Cataldo, M. G., & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–293. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chambliss, M. J. (2002). The characteristics of well-designed science textbooks. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 51–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Chandrasekar, R., & Srinivas, B. (1997). Automatic induction of rules for text simplification. Knowledge Based Systems, 10(3), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cordova, J., Sinatra, G. M., Broughton, S. H., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2014). Self-efficacy, confidence in prior knowledge, and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 164–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crossley, S. A., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Text simplification and comprehensible input: A case for an intuitive approach. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 89–108. doi: 10.1177/1362168811423456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. L., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Alinguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27(11–20), 37–54.Google Scholar
  23. De Belder, J., & Moens, M. F. (2010). Text simplification for children. In Proceedings of the SIGIR workshop on accessible search systems, Geneva, 23 July 2010, pp. 19–26, ACM.Google Scholar
  24. De la Prieta, F., Di Mascio, T., Gennari, R., Marenzi, I., & Vittorini, P. (2014). User centred and evidence based design: The TERENCE experience. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(3), 212–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Denton, C. A., Enos, M., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., et al. (2015). Text-processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 393–416. doi: 10.1002/rrq.105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Diakidoy, I. A. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 335–356. doi: 10.1016/s0361-476x(02)00039-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diakidoy, I. A. N., Mouskounti, T., & Ioannides, C. (2011). Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 22–38. doi: 10.1598/rrq.46.1.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dyck, N., & Pemberton, J. B. (2002). A model for making decisions about text adaptations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(1), 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., Mariage, T. V., & Oxer, T. (1994). Lesson talk as the work of reading groups: The effectiveness of two interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 165–185. doi: 10.1177/002221949402700305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fajardo, I., Avila, V., Ferrer, A., Tavares, G., Gomez, M., & Hernandez, A. (2014). Easy-to-read texts for students with intellectual disability: Linguistic factors affecting comprehension. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(3), 212–225. doi: 10.1111/jar.12065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fajardo, I., Tavares, G., Avila, V., & Ferrer, A. (2013). Towards text simplification for poor readers with intellectual disability: When do connectives enhance text cohesion? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(4), 1267–1279. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Freyhoff, G., Hess, G., Kerr, L., Menzel, E., Tronbacke, T., & Van Der Veken, K. (1998). Make it simple: European guidelines for the production of easy-to-read information for people with learning disability for authors, editors, information providers, translators and other interested persons. ILSMH European Association (International League of Societies for Persons with Mental Handicap). Retrieved from http://www.inclusion-europe.org/uploads/doc/99.pdf
  33. García, J. R., Bustos, A., & Sánchez, E. (2015). The contribution of knowledge about anaphors, organisational signals and refutations to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(4), 405–427. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Cai, Z. Q., Conley, M., Li, H. Y., & Pennebaker, J. (2014). Coh-metrix measures text characteristics at multiple levels of language and discourse. Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 210–229. doi: 10.1086/678293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hayes, D. P., Wolfer, L. T., & Wolfe, M. F. (1996). Schoolbook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-verbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 489–508. doi: 10.3102/00028312033002489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 609–629. doi: 10.1037/edu0000082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 403–430.Google Scholar
  40. Hynd, C. (2003). Conceptual change in response to persuasive messages. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 291–315). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, & IFLA Section of Libraries Serving Disadvantaged Persons. (1997). Guidelines for easy-to-read materials. Hague: International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.Google Scholar
  42. Karreman, J., Van Der Geest, T., & Buursink, E. (2007). Accessible website content guidelines for users with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20(6), 510–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8–75, Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
  44. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leroy, G., Endicott, J. E., Kauchak, D., Mouradi, O., & Just, M. (2013). User evaluation of the effects of a text simplification algorithm using term familiarity on perception, understanding, learning, and information retention. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(7), 191–203. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leroy, G., Kauchak, D., & Hogue, A. (2016). Effects on text simplification: Evaluation of splitting up noun phrases. Journal of Health Communication, 21, 18–26. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1131775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more and less skilled readers? Comprehension of easy and difficult text. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Locke, J. (2003). The plain language movement. Journal of the American Medical Writers Association, 18, 5–8.Google Scholar
  50. Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lorch, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of headings on text recall and summarization. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Inman, W. E. (1993). Effects of signaling topic structure on text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 281–290. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.85.2.281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., WarrenChaplin, P. M., Lacerenza, L., DeLuca, T., & Giovinazzo, R. (1996). Text comprehension training for disabled readers: An evaluation of reciprocal teaching and text analysis training programs. Brain and Language, 54(3), 447–480. doi: 10.1006/brln.1996.0085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mason, L., Baldi, R., Di Ronco, S., Scrimin, S., Danielson, R. W., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017). Refutation text and graphics: Effects on conceptual change learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 165–196). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  56. Mason, L., Gava, M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 291–309. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 89–116). Lanham, MD: R&L Education.Google Scholar
  58. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292–330. doi: 10.1080/01638530902959943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meyer, B. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(3), 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of the top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 141–159. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Meyer, B. J. F., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P. W., Meier, C., et al. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 62–92. doi: 10.1598/rrq.45.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mich, O., & Vettori, C. (2011). E-stories for educating deaf children in literacy. Description and evaluation of the DAMA procedure. Technical Report, LODE project, 2011, http://lode.fbk.eu/pubblicazioni.html
  65. Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Morgan, M. F., & Moni, K. B. (2008). Literacy: Meeting the challenge of limited literacy resources for adolescents and adults with intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 35, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nomura, M., Nielsen, G. S., Tronbacke, B. I., & International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (2010). Guidelines for easy-to-read materials/rev. The Hague: IFLA Headquarters.Google Scholar
  68. Ouellette, G., & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23(2), 189–208. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37–60. doi: 10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 26–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scott, C. M., & Balthazar, C. H. (2010). The grammar of information challenges for older students with language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(4), 288–307. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181f90878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. W. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 374–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smith, B. L., Holliday, W. G., & Austin, H. W. (2010). Students’ comprehension of science textbooks using a question-based reading strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 363–379. doi: 10.1002/tea.20378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith, D., Stenner, A. J., Horabin, I., & Smith, M. (1989). The Lexile scale in theory and practice. Final report. Washington, DC: MetaMetrics (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED307577).Google Scholar
  75. Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Does dyslexia exist? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(4), 579–595. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01208.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stoodley, C. J., Ray, N. J., Jack, A., & Stein, J. F. (2008). Implicit learning in control, dyslexic and garden-variety poor readers. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1145, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutational text in science education. A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Trabasso, T., & Nickels, M. (1992). The development of goal plans of action in the narration of a picture story. Discourse Processes, 15(3), 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52, 47–76. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, G., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Welie, C., Schoonen, R., Kuiken, F., & van den Bergh, H. (2016). Expository text comprehension in secondary school: For which readers does knowledge of connectives contribute the most? Journal of Research in Reading, 00, 1–24. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P. (2017). Web-based text structure strategy instruction improves seventh graders’ content area reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 741–760. doi: 10.1037/edu0000168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., Lei, P., Lin, Y., Johnson, L. A., Spielvogel, J. A., et al. (2014). Multisite randomized controlled trial examining intelligent tutoring of structure strategy for 5th-grade readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 331–357. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2013.853333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Williams, J. P., Stafford, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Simonne, P. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. World Wide Web Consortium. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved May 19, 2017 form https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Arfé
    • 1
  • Lucia Mason
    • 1
  • Inmaculada Fajardo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Developmental Psychology and SocializationUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology/ERI LecturaUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options