Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simplifying informational text structure for struggling readers

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Psychiatry Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders-DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatry Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Bamberg, M. (1987). The acquisition of narratives. Learning to use language. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, R. (2012). Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 63–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chandrasekar, R., & Srinivas, B. (1997). Automatic induction of rules for text simplification. Knowledge Based Systems, 10(3), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27(11–20), 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, N., & Pemberton, J. B. (2002). A model for making decisions about text adaptations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(1), 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 403–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (2003). The plain language movement. Journal of the American Medical Writers Association, 18, 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of headings on text recall and summarization. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (2003). Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(3), 204–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Wide Web Consortium. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved May 19, 2017 form https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35130, Padova, Italy

    Barbara Arfé & Lucia Mason

  2. Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology/ERI Lectura, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Inmaculada Fajardo

Authors
  1. Barbara Arfé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucia Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Inmaculada Fajardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Arfé.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arfé, B., Mason, L. & Fajardo, I. Simplifying informational text structure for struggling readers. Read Writ 31, 2191–2210 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9785-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9785-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation