Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is Difficult to Read, Why Might This be So, and What Could, or Should, be Done About It?: An Overview of Section Two

  • Chapter
Missing the Meaning

Abstract

This chapter will indicate some of the literature dealing with reading difficulties and draw the discussion comprising section two together. It will also report some contemporary research that makes use of tools for the quantitative prediction of text difficulty (Zakaluk & Samuels, 1988) and exposure of actual student difficulty with particular texts (Alderson, 1983; Taylor, 1953). The chapter will close with suggestions of potentially fruitful areas for future development. These suggestions will distinguish between the two groups most concerned with text comprehensibility: teachers who select, modify and use text resources and authors and publishers who produce them.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alderson, J. C. (1983). The cloze procedure as a measure of proficiency in English as a foreign language. In J. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language teaching research (pp. 205–212). Rowley: Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allington, R.L. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (10), 740–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D.L. (2003). Communicating information across cultures: Understanding how others work [internet]. Pantaneto Forum. Retrieved December 17, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue9/anderson.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (1996). The literacy labyrinth. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binkley, M.R. (1988). New ways of assessing text difficulty. In B.L. Zakaluk & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, present and future (pp. 98–120). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bof S. (2002). 2001 HSC Notes from the Examination Centre: Physics. Sydney: Board of Studies, New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borland, H. & Pearce, A. (2002). Identifying key dimensions of language and cultural disadvantage at university. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormuth, J.R. (1965). Validities of grammatical and semantic classifications of cloze test scores. In J.A. Figurel (Ed.), Reading and inquiry (Vol. 10, pp. 303–306). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G.M. & Roth, W.-M. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. Research in Science Education, 32 (3), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breen, R. & Lindsay, R. (2002). Different disciplines require different motivations for student success. Research in Higher Education, 43 (6), 693–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannings, T.R. & Talley, S. (2002). Multimedia and Online Video Case Studies for Preservice Teacher Preparation. Education and Information Technologies, 7 (4), 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, P.C.-H. & Shipstone, D.M. (2003). Supporting learning and promoting conceptual change with box and AVOW diagrams. Part 1: Representational design and instructional approaches. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (2), 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSIRO. (1988). CSIRO research for Australia: Water. Canberra: CSIRO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, D. (1996). A study of textbook readability. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42 (3), 61–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engen, L. & Heien, T. (2002). Phonological skills and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 15 (7–8), 613–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshach, H. & Schwartz, J.L. (2002). Understanding children’s comprehension of visual displays of complex information. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11 (4), 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, P.J., Kissinger, R. W. & Thompson, T. (1988). Text organisation and structure in science textbooks. Reading Horizons, 28, 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finley, F.N. (1991). Why students have trouble learning from science texts. In C.M. Santa & D.E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning: Processes and applications (pp. 22–27). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flugelman, P. (1986). Moonstruck. In M. Aldhamland (Ed.), Science and the ESL student (pp. 57–58). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, C. (2003). Meta-Interpretation and Hypertext Fiction: A Critical Response. Computers and the Humanities, 37 (1), 33–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld, C. (1997). It must be true—it’s in the textbook! Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43 (2), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, M. & Ruotolo, C. (2003). Beyond the Web: TEI, the Digital Library, and the Ebook Revolution. Computers and the Humanities, 37 (1), 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland, J. (1972). Readability. London: University of London Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D.P. (1990). The use of organising sentences in science textbooks. In U. Connor & A.M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 67–86). Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, G. (1999). Learning with diagrams. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45 (2), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. & Wellington, J. (1998). Lowering the language barrier in learning and teaching science. School Science Review, 79 (288), 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, J. W. (2002). There is no simple way to build a middle school reading program. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (10), 754–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, S. & Rochecouste, J. (2002). General academic writing and discipline specific academic writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearsey, J. & Turner, S. (1999). Evaluating textbooks: The role of genre analysis. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17 (1), 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, A. H. (1972). Psycholinguistics and a new empirical approach to the measurement of comprehension and readability of French as a second language. In W.S. Simpkins & A.H. Miller (Eds.), Changing education: Australian viewpoints (pp. 278–295). Sydney: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, A. & Mulligan, D. (2002). Cultures of learning: Critical reading in the social and applied sciences. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 73–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klare, G.R. (1988). The formative years. In B.L. Zakaluk & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, present and future (pp. 14–35). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knezek, G. & Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of new information technologies on teachers and students. Education and Information Technologies, 7 (4), 369–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, A. & Eckstein, S. G. (1995). Skills needed for reading comprehension of Physics texts and their relation to problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (6), 613–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S. (2002). Whole language and the great plummet of 1987–1992. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (10), 748–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krashen, S.D. (1991). Sheltered subject matter teaching. Cross Currents, 18, 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lively, B.A. & Pressey, S.L. (1923). A method for measuring the “vocabulary burden” of textbooks. Educational Administration and Supervision, 9, 389–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, R.R. (1991). Readability for science: Some factors which may affect the students’ understanding of worksheets etc. School Science Review, 73 (262), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. (1993). Successful instructional diagrams. London: Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, P. (1979). Readability and science testing (Vol. 5). Sydney: School Certificate Development Unit, New South Wales Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M. (1976). Synomic versus verbatim scoring of the cloze procedure. Journal of Reading, 20 (2), 141–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D., 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, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, H. (1987). “Process” vs. “product” or down with the opposition. In M.A.K. Halliday, J. Gibbons, & H. Nicholas (Eds.), Learning, keeping and using language (Vol. 1, pp. 379–401). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, A. (1989). Textbooks: Over-relied on but under-utilised. Australian Journal of Reading, 12 (4), 312–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, A. & Stewart-Dore, N. (1984). Learning to learn from text: Effective reading in the content areas. Sydney: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, J.M. (1995). Water. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press/CSIRO.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, J.M. (1996). Science, schools, children and books: Exploring the classroom interface between science and language. Studies in Science Education, 28, 113–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, J.M. (1998). Climbing the fence around science ideas. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44 (4), 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, J.M. (2000). Getting into the game: Language development in science classrooms. Seven Hills: Five Senses Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, C.C. (1996). Comprehending biology text using plasticine. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42 (1), 35–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, A. (1996). Children’s learning from science texts: A critique of “EXIT into Understanding.” Reading, 30 (3), 32–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. & Van Der Wege, C. (2002). Guiding children to be strategic readers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (6), 437–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintó, R. & Ametller, J. (2002). Students’ difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (3), 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L.P. & Yore, L.D. (1992). Review of reading comprehension instruction: 1985–1991. ERIC Document (ED 354 144).

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, C. G. (1981). Cloze procedure: A review. Educational Research, 23 (2), 128–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P.C. (1980). ESP (English for specific purposes): The present position. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollnick, M. (2000). Current issues and perspectives on second language learning of science. Studies in Science Education, 35, 93–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, J. W. (1996). Teaching science to language minority students. Avon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönwetter, D.J., Clifton, R.A., & Perry, R.P. (2002). Content familiarity: Differential impact of effective teaching on student achievement outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 43 (6), 625–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, M. (April 27, 1995). Reading: The new testament. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soyibo, K. (1994). Misleading labellings in biology textbook drawings. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 40 (2), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, C.R. (1989). Writing and reading in science: The hidden messages. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education. Lewes: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. (1981). The function of one type of participle in a chemistry textbook. In L. Selinker, E. Tarone, & V. Hanzeli (Eds.), English for academic and technical purposes: Studies in honor of Louis Trimble (pp. 40–52). Rowley: Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (1985). Episodes in ESP: A source and reference book on the development of English for science and technology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J.M. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue Belge de Philogie et d’Histoire, 71, 687–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylog C. V. (1979). The English of high school textbooks. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, L. (1991). Process vs genre: non-issue in the whole language classroom. TESOL in Context, 1 (2), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valleley, R.J., & Shriver, M.D. (2003). An examination of the effects of repeated readings with secondary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12 (1), 55–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valverde, G.A., Bianchi, L.J., Wolfe, R.G., Schmidt, W.H., & Houang, R.T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world-wide use of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Weert, T.J. & Munro, R.K. (Eds.). (2003). Informatics and the digital society: Social ethical and cognitive issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils’ written expression of procedural understanding through the use of writing frames in science: findings from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J.J. (2001). School textbooks and reading in science: Looking back and looking forward. School Science Review, 82 (300), 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J.J. & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. & Cornu, R.L. (2002). Email Reducing Stress for Student Teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 7 (4), 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaluk, B.L. & Samuels, S.J. (Eds.). (1988). Readability: Its past present and future. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Mitch O’Toole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter, UK

    Alan Peacock (Reader in Science Education) (Reader in Science Education)

  2. Department of Education, Concordia University in Montreal, Canada

    Ailie Cleghorn (Associate Professor) (Associate Professor)

Copyright information

© 2004 Alan Peacock and Ailie Cleghorn

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Toole, M. (2004). What is Difficult to Read, Why Might This be So, and What Could, or Should, be Done About It?: An Overview of Section Two. In: Peacock, A., Cleghorn, A. (eds) Missing the Meaning. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403982285_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation