Does One Size Fit All? Exploring the Contribution of Text features, Text content, and Grade of Use on Comprehension

References

• Adams, M. J. (2009). The challenge of advanced texts. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed) Reading more, reading better: Are American students reading enough of the right stuff? (pp. 163–189). New York: Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign, IL: The Center for the Study of Reading, National Institute of Education, National Academy of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Arya, D. J., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2011). The effects of syntactic and lexical complexity on the comprehension of elementary science texts. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 107.
   Google Scholar
• Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137–164. doi:10.1080/02702710801963951
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bormuth, J. R. (1969). Development of readability analyses. (U.S. Office of Education Final Rep., Proj. No. 70052, Contract No. OEC-3-7-070052-0326). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Bormuth, J. R. (1971). Development of standards of readability: Toward a rational criterion of passage performance. (U.S. Office of Education Final Rep., Contract No. OEC-0-9-230237-4125). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., & Jaynes, C. A. (2009). Text genre and science content: Ease of reading, comprehension, and reader preference. Reading Psychology, 30(6), 487–511. doi:10.1080/02702710902733550
   Google Scholar
• Chall, J. S., Bissex, G. L., Conard, S. S., & Harris-Sharples, S. H. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text difficulty: A practical guide for teachers and writers. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books.
   Google Scholar
• Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25(1), 1–53. doi:10.1080/01638539809545019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham, J. W., & Anne Mesmer, H. (2014). Quantitative measurement of text difficulty: What’s the use?. The Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 255-269.utho (2014).
   Google Scholar
• Dale, E., & Chall, J.S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability (Vol. 27, pp. 11–20). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Bureau of Educational Research. (Reprinted from Educational Research Bulletin).
   Google Scholar
• Deane, P., Sheehan, K. M., Sabatini, J., Futagi, Y., & Kostin, I. (2006). Differences in text structure and its implications for assessment of struggling readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 257–275. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Education and Science (1993). English for ages 5 to 16 National curriculum proposals of the secretary of state for education and the secretary of state for Wales. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (1998). Background knowledge, linguistic complexity, and second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 253–271. doi:10.1080/10862969809547998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farr, J. N., Jenkins, J. J., & Paterson, D. G. (1951). Simplification of Flesch Reading Ease Formula. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 333–357. doi:10.1037/h0062427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flesch, R. (1943). Marks of readable style; a study in adult education. Teachers College Contributions to Education, 1 (15).
   Google Scholar
• Fry, E. B. (1969). The readability graph validated at primary levels. The Reading Teacher, 22(6), 534–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found in children's narrative and expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 1–37. doi:10.1093/applin/25.1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. doi:10.3102/0013189X11413260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunning, T. G. (2003). The role of readability today’s classroom. Top Language Disorders, 23(3), 175–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E.H., & Cervetti, G.N. (2012). What differences in narrative and informational texts mean for the learning and instruction of vocabulary. In J. Baumann and E. Kame’enui (Eds.), Vocabulary Instruction: Research to Practice (2nd Ed.) (pp. 322-344). New York, NY: Guilford Press.).
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, J. (1939/2015). Finnegans wake. London, UK: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, A. M. (2009). Positioned by reading and writing: Literacy practices, roles, and genres in common occupations. Written Communication, 26(1), 53–76. doi:10.1177/0741088308327445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klare, G. R. (1984). Readability. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 681–744). New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Klare, G. R., & Buck, B. (1954). Know your reader: The scientific approach to readability. New York: Hermitage.
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T.K., Kireyev, K., & Panaccione, C. (2011). Word maturity: A new metric for word knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 92–108. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.536130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D. Y. W. (2001). Genres, registers, text types, domains and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.
   Google Scholar
• Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Promises and problems of teaching with popular culture: A linguistic ethnographic analysis of dis-course genre mixing in a literacy lesson. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 40–69. doi:10.1598/RRQ.46.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading-a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
   Google Scholar
• Mesmer, H. A., Cunningham, J. W., & Hiebert, E. H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: Learning from the past, anticipating the future. Reading research quarterly, 47(3), 235–258.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & 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. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.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. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• O’Shea, J., Bandar, Z., Crockett, K., & McLean, D. (2011). A comparative study of two short text semantic similarity measures. In J. O’Shea, N.T. Nguyen, K. Crockett, R.J., Howlett, & L.C. Jain (Eds.). Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications (pp. 172–181). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., Sayroo, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Effects of text cohesion on comprehension of biology texts. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1696–1701.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D. (1974). The effects of grammatical complexity on children's comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(2), 155–192. doi:10.2307/747180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (2014). The state of the field: Qualitative analyses of text complexity. The Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 161–183. doi:10.1086/678297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 235–257. doi:10.1080/10888430701344306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sáenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 31–41. doi:10.1177/074193250202300105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saukkonen, P. (2007). Cognitive schemas behind statistics: Towards a system of text typology. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 14(2-3), 242–264. doi:10.1080/09296170701514197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. Handbook of Early Literacy Research, 2, 173–182.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. doi:10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. M., Kostin, I., & Futagi, Y. (2008). When do standard approaches for measuring vocabulary difficulty, syntactic complexity and referential cohesion yield biased estimates of text difficulty. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Spache, G. (1953). A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. The Elementary School Journal, 53(7), 410–413. doi:10.1086/458513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinbeck, J. (1952/2002). East of Eden. London, UK: Penguin
   Google Scholar
• Thorndike, E. L. (1921). The teacher’s word book. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Tiegs, E. W., & Clark, W. W. (1963). California Achievement Test. Monterey, CA: CTB.
   Google Scholar
• Tun, P.A. (1989). Age differences in processing expository and narrative text. Journal of Gerontology, 44(1), P9–15. doi:10.1093/geronj/44.1.P9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
   Google Scholar