Career readiness: An analysis of text complexity for occupational reading materials

References

• Achieve. (2012). The future of the U.S. workforce: The limited career prospects for high school graduates without additional education and training. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/LimitedCareerProspects.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Achieve. (2013). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The role of the school librarian. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSSLibrariansBrief-FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ACT. (2006a). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• ACT. (2006b). Ready for college and ready for work: Same or different? Iowa City, IA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts: The interdependence of reading and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better: Are American students reading enough of the right stuff? (pp. 163–189). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in postsecondary education, 1972–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Ankrum, J. W., & Bean, R. M. (2008). Differentiated reading instruction: What and how. Reading Horizons, 48, 133–146.
   Google Scholar
• Barth, P. (2003). A common core curriculum for the new century. Thinking K–16, 7, 3–25.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J., & Eskenazi, M. (2004). Retrieval of authentic documents for reader-specific lexical practice. Paper presented at the InSTIL/ICALL 2004 Symposium on Computer Assisted Learning, Venice, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/help_wanted_technical_appx.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, M., & Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 283–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• College Board. (2013). 2013 SAT report on college and career readiness. Retrieved from http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/cb-seniors-2013
   Google Scholar
• Collins-Thompson, K., & Callan, J. (2004). Information retrieval for language tutoring: An overview of the REAP project. Paper presented at the Twenty Seventh Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Sheffield, England.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deil-Amen, R., & DeLuca, S. (2010). The underserved third: How our educational structures populate an educational underclass. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15, 27–50.
   Google Scholar
• Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, A. L. (2008). Vocational-technical education in Massachusetts. Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 42. Retrieved from http://collinsed.com/PDFs/voc_tech_MA_pioneer_institute.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Joftus, S. (2002). Every child a graduate. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
   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. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a006655.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koslin, B. L., Zeno, S., & Koslin, S. (1987). The DRP: An effectiveness measure in reading. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
   Google Scholar
• Kucer, S. B. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for the teaching of reading and writing (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K. (2011). Pearson's text complexity measure (White Paper). Iowa City, IA: Pearson. Retrieved from http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/PearsonsTextComplexity.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K, Foltz, P. W. & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., & Way, W. D. (2012). Improving text complexity measurement through the Reading Maturity Metric. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved from http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/Word_Maturity_and_Text_Complexity_NCME.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Milone, M. (2012). The development of ATOS: The renaissance readability formula. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Moje, E. B. (2010). Comprehending in the content areas: The challenges of comprehension, grades 7–12, and what to do about them. In K. Ganske & D. Fisher (Eds.), A comprehensive look at reading comprehension, K–12 (pp. 46–72). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects, Appendix A. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Retrieved from Common Core State Standards Initiative website: http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Appendix A: Research supporting, key elements of the Standards, glossary of key terms. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/documents/report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., & Liben, M. (2012). Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance (Technical Report to the Gates Foundation). Retrieved from http://achievethecore.org/content/upload/nelson_perfetti_liben_measures_of_text_difficulty_research_ela.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pritchard, R. E., Romeo, G. C., & Muller, S. A. B. (1999). Integrating reading strategies into the accounting curriculum. College Student Journal, 33, 77–81.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV guide: Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmeiser, C. B. (2009). Impact of literacy on college and career readiness and STEM success. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/ACTPPT041009.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. M., Kostin, I., Futagi, Y., & Flor, M. (2010). Generating automated text complexity classifications that are aligned with targeted text complexity standards (ETS Research Report RR-10-28). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenner, A. J. (1996). Measuring reading comprehension with the Lexile Framework. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Stenner, A. J., Koons, H., & Swartz, C. W. (2009). Re-conceptualizing the text complexity demand curve and using technology to promote growth toward college and career readiness. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from https://d1jt5u2s0h3gkt.cloudfront.net/m/resources/materials/Text_Complexity_Technology_Lexile_Summit.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. New York: NY, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sticht, T. G., Armijo, L. A., Koffman, N., Roberson, K., Weitzman, R., Chang, F., & Moracco, J. (1986). Teachers, books, computers, and peers: Integrated communications technologies for adult literacy development. Monterey, CA: U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.
   Google Scholar
• Van Lanen, R. J., Lockie, N. M., & McGannon, T. (2000). Predictors of nursing students' performance in a one-semester organic and biochemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 767–770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, G. L., Fitzgerald, J., & Stenner, A. J. (2013). The common core state standards' quantitative text complexity trajectory: Figuring out how much complexity is enough. Educational Researcher, 42, 59–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar