DOCSLIB.ORG

The Readability of Selected Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Grade Social Studies Textbooks As Determined by the Fry Readability Graph and Group Informal Reading Inventories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Readability of Selected Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Grade Social Studies Textbooks As Determined by the Fry Readability Graph and Group Informal Reading Inventories AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF JANET PRUITT for the degree Doctor of Education (Name) (Degree) in EDUCATION presented on February 18, 1977 (Major Department) (Date) Title: THE READABILITY OF SELECTED FOURTH, FIFTH AND SIXTH GRADE SOCIAL STUDIES TEXTBOOKS AS DETERMINED BY THE FRY READABILITY GRAPH AND GROUP INFORMAL READING INVENTORIES Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Dr. Kenneth M. Ahrendt Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the readability of three series of selected fourth, fifth and sixth grade social studies textbooks, a total of nine textbooks. Two measurements were utilized: a readability formula (Fry Readability Graph; Knapp, 1971), and group informal reading inventories. The Fry Graph was applied to ten randomly selected 100-word passages in each text; proper nouns were included in the computations. The group informal reading inventories were constructed from the same textbooks on passages not previously taught. The tests were administered in May to 1467 students in 70 randomly selected classrooms. Procedures Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Readability levels derived by the application of the Fry Graph were reported for each text:, as was the range of readability within each text and the deviation of each sample from the overall readability of the textbook. The test scores from the group informal reading inventories were first reported in terms of the per cent of subjects scoring at the in- dependent level (90, 95, 100 per cent), the instructional level (65, 70, 75, 80, 85 per cent) and the frustration level (60 per cent or lower) for the sample. Mean test scores were also computed for the sample, the urban and rural subsets, for each grade level, and for each publisher. To determine if there were significant differences among the subsets, the following null hypotheses were formulated: H There are no significant differences in the mean scores of 1 the urban and rural subjects. H There are no significant differences in the mean scores of 2 the subjects in grades four, five and six. H There are no significant differences among the mean scores of 3 the subjects tested on the D. C. Heath, the Silver Burdett or the Benefic Press social studies series. The differences among groups were statistically analyzed at the .05 and .01 levels of significance by the pooled variance t-test or by the analysis of variance. When the analysis of variance resulted in a sig- nificant F value, the multiple range test was applied to determine the exact location of the mean difference. Findings of the Study Fry Readability Graph 1. Two textbooks, the fourth grade textbooks published by D. C. Heath and by Silver Burdett, had readability levels in agreement with the publishers' designated grade level. The remaining seven textbooks had readability levels one to four years above the designated grade level. 2. The average range of readability within the textbooks was 6.2 years with little evidence of a gradation from less difficult to more difficult reading material. 3. When the three series were ranked according to their relative difficulty on the basis of the Fry readability levels, it was determined that: a. The D. C. Heath series is the least difficult. b. The Silver Burdett series occupies an intermediate position. c. The Benefic Press series is the most difficult. Group Informal Reading Inventories 1. For the total sample 9.41 per cent of the subjects scored at the independent level, 32.04 per cent scored at the instruc- tional level, and 58.55 per cent scored at the frustration level. The mean test score was 54.82 per cent. 2. The mean score (56.64 per cent) of the urban subjects was sig- nificantly higher (.01 level) than the mean score (52.35 per cent) of the rural subjects with a t value of 3.30.Hwas rejected. 1 3. The mean score for grade four was 50.35 per cent; for grade five, 53.96 per cent; and for grade six, 58.09 per cent. The analysis of variance resulted in a significant (.01 level) F value of 11.25. Hwas rejected. 2 4. The mean scores by publisher were: D. C. Heath, 55.88 per cent; Silver Burdett, 55.77 per cent; and Benefic Press, 50.38 per cent. The analysis of variance resulted in a significant (.01 level) F value of 5.47. The multiple range test showed significant differences between the Benefic Press and D. C. Heath series (.01 level) and between the Benefic Press and Silver Burdett series (.01 level). There were no significant differences be- tween the D. C. Heath and Silver Burdett series. Hwas rejected. 3 Implications 1. The findings of this study did not differ in any substantial way from the results reported by earlier investigators. Further studies of the readability of social studies textbooks similar in content to the three series analyzed in this investigation is not warranted. 2. Additional research is needed to determine if systematic instruc- tion resembling the procedures prescribed for a well-developed basal reading lesson will significantly affect the ability of students to comprehend social studies textbooks. Recommendations 1. Current knowledge regarding the nature of concept development should be a major consideration for curriculum decisions in the social studies. Piaget's findings regarding the cognitive func- tioning of elementary school students provide insight regarding the capabilities of this age group. 2. Instructional alternatives that diminish heavy reliance on the textbook should be afforded a fair trial in the classroom,e.g., simulation and gaming (Cuetzkow, 1962; Inbar, 1972), process analog (Fielder, 1967; Joyce, 1972), role playing (Shaftel, 1967), problem solving (Fenton, 1967; Shaftel, 1967), inquiry approaches (Suchman, 1964; Clements, Fielder, Tabachnick, 1966), and induc- tive development of concepts and generalizations (Taba, 1966; Fenton, 1966; Hanna, 1965). 3. A publicly financed agency staffed by expert analysts and equipped with the necessary resources should be established to provide analysis services to publishers and to determine the difficulty level of all instructional materials as they appear on the market (Bormuth, 1971). 4. Pilot editions of all new textbooks should be field tested with a cross section of students using procedures similar to those utilized by the publishers of standardized tests. 5. When classroom teachers make reading assignments in social studies textbooks, they should faithfully adhere to the same procedures that are prescribed for a well-developed basal reading lesson. The Readability of Selected Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Grade Social Studies Textbooks as Determined by the Fry Readability Graph and Group Informal Reading Inventories by Janet Louise McCracken Pruitt A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education June 1977 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Associate Professor of Education in charge of major Redacted for Privacy Dean of School of Education Redacted for Privacy -Deari" of Graduap S-chool Date thesis is presented Q-/8-- 7? Typed by Catherine Baltimore for Janet Louise McCracken Pruitt ACKNOWLEDGMENTS With a grateful heart I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the following people, each of whom played a significant role in the attainment of this degree. To my Committee: Ken Ahrendt, Education, Major Professor, for his wise counsel, for his timely and succinct suggestions, and, notably, for his forebearance with this protracted endeavor. Bill Harp, Education, for his able assistance and for his willing- ness to assume an active role in this project after it was well underway. Marian Carlin, Family Life, and Anna Meeks, Education, two phenomenal teachers who, unknown to each other, guided me in the development ofa philosophical predisposition toward the education of young children that has significantly influenced not only my professional role butmy child- rearing practices as well. Marian and Anna have also made a unique con- tribution by providing an aspiring female educator with superb role models. Tom McClintock, History, Graduate School Representative. How f or- tuitous to have a college-level social scientist who also hasa profound concern for the education of elementary school children as the Graduate School Representative for this particular investigation. Jim Harper, Poultry Science, Unofficial Graduate School Representative, who by virtue of the fact that he is married tomy sister, read and reread this paper for style and technical considerations. To my Statistical Advisors: Harvey Lipman, Statistics, for his very competent professional services setting up and interpreting the data, and, moreover, completing this task under a rigid timeline. Harvey drew on an incredible variety of situations and a lot of scrap paper to illuminate the statistical treatment; he will be a fine teacher when he graduates from this university. Lynn Scheurman, Statistics and Computer Center, for establishing the sampling procedure for the Fry Readability Graph and for answering all kinds of questions day or night because it was my good fortune to have him for a next-door neighbor. Norbert Hartmann, Statistics, for establishing the stratified random sampling procedures for the group informal reading inventories. To my Family: Lyman Pruitt, my husband, who willingly assumed my family responsi- bilities during my graduate work; our children, Marion and Randy, who had the good sense not to complain about their Father's cooking; their Grand- mothers, Hazel McCracken and Joyce Pruitt, who came to our assistance time and time again; and my sister, Mariellen Harper, for her unflagging moral support and for not giving up even when I tried to. To my Friend and Typist: Cathy Baltimore, who brought to bear on thispaper a tremendous amount of professional skill and a commitment to excellence. When the period is added to this sentence she will have completed typing her firstdissertation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Text Complexity by Dr
    Author Monographs Text Complexity By Dr. Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago Member, National Reading Panel; President, International Reading Association, 2006 Chair, National Literacy Panel and National Early Literacy Panel It would be too costly and All texts are not equal. Some texts inconvenient to perform the above- are harder to read and comprehend. explained process for every text, of Just as there are individual differences course, so a second fundamental in children, there are individual premise of readability measurement differences in the texts that we ask is that the measure must specifically children to read. Some children summarize only text features or read better than others, and there characteristics, and not how easily are a variety of reasons for these read the text has been in the past. On differences in reading abilities. The the basis of this enumeration of text same is true of texts. Some texts are features, the formula has successfully easier or harder, and there are several predicted reader comprehension for reasons for these differences. texts. The purpose of this essay is to describe what factors Readability measures have evolved since they first cause texts to differ and to explore the relationship of appeared. Now, most readability formulas only measure text difficulty and children’s learning. two factors: word complexity and sentence complexity (Klare, 1984). Thus, measuring the readability or What makes text complex? complexity of a text involves an evaluation of the words: counting the average number of letters or syllables, Since the 1920s, there has been interest in measuring checking the frequency of the words (common words text difficulty or readability (Lively & Pressey, 1923).
    [Show full text]
  • The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful
    The Lexile Framework: Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful Stephen Krashen CSLA (California School Library Association) Journal 24(2): 25-26, 2001 The Lexile Framework attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It is a readability formula that "stands firmly in the tradition of classic readability formulas" (Stenner, 1996, p. 23) that assigns reading levels to texts based on word frequency and sentence length. The Lexile Framework is intended to help teachers and librarians recommend supplementary reading that is at the right reading level: "For example, an eighth-grade girl who is interested in sports but is not reading at grade level might be able to handle a biography of a famous athlete. The teacher may not know, however, whether that biography is too difficult or too easy for the student. " All the teacher has to do is use the Lexile Framework on the text and the student and select a book at the right level. Then, "as the reader improves, new titles with higher text measures can be chosen to match the growing person (sic) measure, thus keeping the comprehension rate at the chosen level." (Stenner, 1996, p. 22). Not Necessary None of this is necessary, and it is probably harmful. There is a much easier way for readers to select texts: Are they comprehensible and interesting? It doesn't take long for a reader to determine this: All it takes is sampling a little of the text (reading it). Our eighth grader simply needs to have a look at a few biographies. Teachers and librarians can certainly help in text selection and they do this all the time, with great success.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Check a Readability Score with Microsoft Word
    How to Check a Readability Score with Microsoft Word Step 1: Open your Informed Consent document in Word. Step 2: Look at the top tool bar and click “Review.” It should the ninth option at the top in Word 365. Step 3: Click “Check Document” or “Spelling Check.” It should be on the right at the very top with the image of a green check mark and the letters ‘abc’. Step 4: A small window should pop up that reads “Readability Statistics,” like the one to the right. *If this window does not automatically pop up for you, try these steps: (1) Go to “File,” then “Options.” (2) Select “Proofing.” (3) Under “When correcting spelling and grammar in Word,” make sure the “Check grammar with spelling” check-box is selected. (4) Select “Show readability statistics.” (5) Try starting over with Step 2. If you still can’t get the readability statistics to show, please click the help button in the top tool bar for step-by-step instructions on how to enable this feature. Step 5: “Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level” in this window is the number the IRB is concerned with regarding readability for the population you are studying. Guidelines - Any population that requires an advanced degree (2-year degree or more) must have a reading level of 12.0 or below. - Children or other special populations (the elderly, prison inmates, etc.) must have a reading level of 3.0 or below. - The general public or any other population that does not fit into the other two categories must have a reading level of 8.0 or below.
    [Show full text]
  • Smog Readability Formula
    The Smog Readability Formula Adapted from McLaughlin, G. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12 (8). 639-646. The SMOG conversion tables were developed by Harold C. McGraw, Office of Educational Research, Baltimore Co. Public Schools, Towson, MD. The SMOG Readability Formula is a simple method you can use to determine the reading level of your written materials. If a person reads at or above a grade level, they will understand 90-100% of the information. Generally, you need to aim for a reading level of sixth grade or less. In addition, to ensure that the text is clear and readable, read your draft aloud. How to use the SMOG formula: 1. Count 10 sentences in a row near the beginning of your material. Count 10 sentences in the middle. Count 10 sentences near the end. (30 total sentences) 2. Count every word with three or more syllables in each group of sentences, even if the same word appears more than once. 3. Add the total number of words counted. Use the SMOG Conversion Table I to find the grade level. If your material has fewer than 30 sentences, follow the instructions for "SMOG on Shorter Passages" and use SMOG Conversion Table II. Word Counting Rules: • A sentence is any group of words ending with a period, exclamation point, or question mark. • Words with hyphens count-as-one-word. • Proper nouns are counted. • Read numbers out loud to decide the number of syllables. • In long sentences with colons or semicolons followed by a list, count each part of the list with the beginning phrase of the sentence as an individual sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Generating and Rendering Readability Scores for Project Gutenberg Texts
    Generating and Rendering Readability Scores for Project Gutenberg Texts Ronald P. Reck RRecktek LLC. [email protected] and Ruth A. Reck University of California Davis, CA 95616 U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract Here the frequency distribution functions have been calculated for seven different types of readability measurements for over fourteen thousand texts from Project Gutenberg1 (PG). Other supporting measurements were also obtained: the average characters per word, the words per sentence, and the syllables per word. Three types of distributions have been demonstrated from the analysis of the metadata. While there are similarities among some of the scores, there is considerable interpretation yet to be made. The most complex and unique distribution function is found for the Flesch Reading Ease scores. Because of the computing intensity necessary to obtain these distributions it is only in the present age of information science that such a broad brush of characterization of a billion word data source can be made. It is essential that these be sorted by language to better interpret the meaning of the distributions. 1. Introduction Various readability measurements can serve as indicators to quantify the relative accessibility of written information. However, domain specific attributes such as complex terminology or language can direct readability scores towards higher values than the actual complexity of the text warrants. For instance, scientific writing is likely to contain long words that may not significantly increase the complexity of the writing to those familiar with the terms but make the readability value appear greater. Despite this and other limitations, readability measurements remain useful attributes for describing text, especially when the values are regarded as relative measurements from within a specific type of writing or language.
    [Show full text]
  • SUFE and the Internet: Are Healthcare Information Websites Accessible to Parents?
    Open access Original research bmjpo: first published as 10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000782 on 20 October 2020. Downloaded from SUFE and the internet: are healthcare information websites accessible to parents? Andrea Mc Carthy , Colm Taylor To cite: Mc Carthy A, Taylor C. ABSTRACT What is known about the subject? SUFE and the internet: are Background Slipped upper femoral epiphysis is healthcare information an adolescent hip disorder requiring rapid surgical ► Slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE) is a complex websites accessible to intervention. Faced with the prospect of their child parents? BMJ Paediatrics Open adolescent hip disorder. Caregivers may turn to the undergoing surgery, many fearful parents will turn to the 2020;4:e000782. doi:10.1136/ internet for information but find healthcare websites internet to provide information and reassurance. Previous bmjpo-2020-000782 offer conflicting advice, resulting in increased anx- studies have shown the orthopaedic information can be iety and reduced postoperative rehab compliance. ► Additional material is difficult to comprehend. published online only. To view Objective Assess the readability of healthcare websites please visit the journal online regarding slipped upper femoral epiphysis. (http:// dx. doi. org/ 10. 1136/ Methods The term Slipped Upper Femoral Epiphysis was What this study adds? bmjpo- 2020- 000782). searched in Google, Bing and Yahoo. The websites were evaluated using readability software with seven specialised ► The study shows that for websites regarding SUFE, the average Flesich Read Ease Score score is 52 Received 30 June 2020 readability tests including the Flesch- Kincaid Reading and the average reading grade level is 8.67. Both of Revised 28 August 2020 Grade Level, the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Simple Accepted 6 September 2020 Measure of Gobbledygook, Coleman- Liau Index, Automated these figures do not comply with acceptable stan- Readability Index and the Gunning Fog Index.
    [Show full text]
  • Readability Level Reading Formulas
    Tool 13. Assessing Readability Level Reading Formulas Readability measures are primarily based on factors such as the complexity of the printed materials by measuring the number of words in the sentence and the number of letters or syllables per word (i.e., as a reflection of word frequency.) A “score” reflects the grade level of the printed material. • The Flesch Reading Ease The Flesch Reading Ease is one of the oldest and most accurate formulas. It is a simple approach to assess the grade-level of the reader. • The Fry Graph Readability Formula Edward Fry developed readability tests based on graph. This graph-based test determined readability through high school. In 1977, Fry extended the graph to test through the college years. • The SMOG Readability Formula This is a simple method used to determine the reading level of written materials. The SMOG Readability Formula was developed by Harold C. McGraw. These formulas can be helpful but should not be your only evaluation tool because reading level is only one aspect of readability, and readability formulas are not always accurate with forms that have short sentences or phrases. The Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula The specific mathematical formula is: RE = 206.835 – (1.015 x ASL) – (84.6 x ASW) RE = Readability Ease ASL = Average Sentence Length (i.e., the number of words divided by the number of sentences) ASW = Average number of syllables per word (i.e., the number of syllables divided by the number of words.) The output, i.e., RE is a number ranging from 0 to 100.
    [Show full text]
  • A Text Readability Continuum for Postsecondary Readiness
    Volume 19 ✤ Number 4 ✤ Summer 2008 ✤ pp. 602–632 A Text Readability Continuum for Postsecondary Readiness Gary L. Williamson North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Over the last 3 decades, a number of authors claimed that too many students were unprepared for the postsecondary world (e.g., Bock & Moore, 1986; Greene & Forster, 2003; Sum, 1999; oU.S. Department of Labor, 1991). To support this contention, some reports focused on student behaviors and attainments, such as high school dropout rates and/or graduation rates (e.g., Greene & Forster, 2003; Horn, 1998). Some focused on anal- ogous later events, such as the rates at which college students require remediation or fail to complete their programs of study (Parsad & Lewis, 2003; Rosenbaum, 2004). Others focused on the skill demands of the workplace in contrast to what stu- dents have been taught in school (Parker, 2004; Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2004). Still others focused on the literacy demands of citizenship (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993). Traditional indicators of college readiness have included college transcripts, student course completions, and student performance (McCormick, 1999; Sanderson, Dugoni, Rasinski, Taylor, & Carroll, 1996). However, no one has examined the text demands of high school in contrast to those of college, the workplace, the mili- 602 Copyright © 2008 Prufrock Press, P.O. Box 8813, Waco, TX 76714 Although high school graduates may be able to successfully navigate high school course content, they may not be prepared to handle the readability of texts they encounter in various postsecondary endeavors. The average readability of high school texts is lower than the average readability of citizenship, workplace, community college, university, and graduate admissions text collections.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLES Readability, Logodiversity, and the Effectiveness of College
    ARTICLES Readability, Logodiversity, and the Effectiveness of College Science Textbooks Rebecca S. Burton Department of Biology, Alverno College, PO Box 343922, Milwaukee, WI 53234-3922 [email protected] Abstract: Textbooks are required in most introductory college science courses, but students may not be benefitting from the textbooks as much as their instructors might hope. Word use in the textbooks may influence textbook effectiveness. I tested whether either the amount of technical vocabulary or the readability had a significant effect on students’ ability to learn general biology concepts. I provided different versions of the same reading, then tested students on the content. On the topic with the lowest overall post-reading quiz scores, students who received readings with less technical vocabulary outperformed their peers (P = 0.03). Textbooks did not appear to be an important source of learning for students in this study; fewer than half the students reported that they were reading the assigned chapters near the start of the semester, and this number declined sharply. Students had difficulty correctly answering questions immediately after reading brief selections, indicating a low level of comprehension. Changes in textbooks and teaching strategies may improve student learning and reading compliance. Key words: readability, logodiversity, textbooks INTRODUCTION these grade level scores are based on length of Unless students can learn from their textbooks, sentences and length of words. These indices are there is little purpose in requiring them. generally intended for use in evaluating materials for Overwhelmingly, introductory college science K-12 schools or for the general public. Making courses use textbooks, but questions remain about sentences shorter and simpler will result in a lower what aspects of the actual prose result in greater grade level score, but may not make college biology student learning of scientific concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Simply Put: a Guide for Creating Easy-To-Understand Materials
    Simply Put A guide for creating easy-to-understand materials What’s in this guide? Communication that is Clear and Understandable………………................................3 Where this Guide Fits into an Overall Communication Plan…………………….......4 Make Your Message Clear ........................................... ..............................................5 Text Appearance Matters ……….............. .................................................................9 Visuals Help Tell Your Story ....................................................................................10 Layout and Design………………………………….................................................17 Consider Culture…………………………...………………………………….…….23 Translations Take Your Message Further ..................................................................25 Testing for Readability ...............................................................................................27 Appendix A - Checklist for Easy-to-Understand Print Materials...............................29 Appendix B - Resources for Communication Planning .............................................30 Appendix C - Formulas for Calculating Readability .................................................31 Appendix D - Resources ............................................................................................38 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….43 Strategic and Proactive Communication Branch Division of Communication Services Office of the Associate Director for Communication Centers for Disease Control
    [Show full text]
  • The Principles of Readability
    The Principles of Readability By William H. DuBay Impact Information, 126 E. 18th Street, #C204, Costa Mesa, CA 92627, (949) 631-3309 Copyright The Principles of Readability 25 August 2004 2004 William H. DuBay. All Rights Reserved. Abstract The Principles of Readability gives a short history of literacy studies in the U.S. and a short history of research in readability and the readability formulas. Readers' Comments Please send all comments and suggestions regarding this document to: William DuBay Impact Information 126 E. 18th Street, #C204 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Phone: (949) 631-3309 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.impact-information.com Copyright © 2004 William H. DuBay Page ii Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................1 Guidelines For Readability..........................................................................2 The readability formulas..............................................................................2 Are the readability formulas a problem? .....................................................2 What is readability?.....................................................................................3 Content ........................................................................................................3 The Adult Literacy Studies...................................................................................4 Grading the reading skills of students..........................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Language: Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Text 25 January 2007 © 2007 William H
    Smart Language Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Text William H. DuBay Impact Information Costa Mesa, California Copyright Smart Language: Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Text 25 January 2007 © 2007 William H. DuBay. All Rights Reserved. Abstract Smart Language gives a brief introduction to the adult literacy sur‐ veys and the research on readability and the readability formulas. Readersʹ Comments Please send all comments and suggestions regarding this document to: William DuBay Email: bdubay@impact‐information.com Website: http://www.impact‐information.com ISBN: 1‐4196‐5439‐X To George R. Klare 1922—2006 Teacher, writer, scientist, and friend Contents Introduction...............................................................................................................1 Writing for the Right Audience................................................................1 Writing for the Wrong Audience .............................................................2 What Is a Reading Grade Level? ..............................................................4 What is Readability? ..................................................................................4 The Readability Formulas .........................................................................6 How This Book is Organized....................................................................7 Part 1 How People Read ........................................................................................10 Chapter 1 The Adult Literacy Surveys .........................................................12
    [Show full text]