Curriculum

Researchers and Publishers Explore Ways To Correct Deficiencies in Reading Texts

But Market Forces and Selection Procedures Are Obstacles to Change
By Susan Walton — September 29, 1982 11 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Two years after a group of researchers first began telling them about the fundamental problems of basal reading texts, education publishers say that although they are very concerned about the situation, correcting it is more easily said than done.

In the third meeting designed to foster a dialogue on the subject, publishers and reading researchers gathered here last week to discuss the issues identified in the research, and to consider possible solutions.

Sponsored by the Association of American Publishers, the two-day meeting brought together representatives of 44 education publishing companies and about 30 reading researchers from institutions around the country.

The problems the two groups addressed have emerged in research on basal, or beginning, readers and the workbooks and manuals that accompany them. The studies were conducted by researchers from the federally supported Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign.

Over the past six years, the researchers have identified numerous deficiencies in the various series of books used to teach reading in virtually all elementary schools.

The problems, according to a number of studies, include the misuse of “readability” scores and formulas, which can lead to oversimplified texts; teachers’ manuals that include very little “comprehension” instruction; and poor workbooks. (See Education Week, Nov. 23, 1981.)

At last week’s meeting, the publishers agreed that much of the criticism is valid. But they pointed out that publishers can produce better materials for teaching reading only if those who buy and use textbooks understand both the implications of the research and the limitations of standards currently used to judge reading books.

Any long-term solution, they said, will probably include changing the processes school districts use to select texts and informing educators of the reasons for the changes.

Currently, the publishers said, the pressures of the marketplace, the demands of state textbook-adoption committees for “objective” information on the difficulty of textbooks, and other factors all slow the rate at which they are able to change their products.

Although some of the issues will probably not be resolved for a long time, the two groups identified several broad strategies to improve the situation:

Educators, including members of state textbook-adoption committees, should be told of the limitations and abuses--such as using the formulas as the sole criterion for textbook selection--of “readability formulas.” Researchers should work on developing new criteria that educators can use to judge the relative difficulty of texts.

Publishers, researchers, and educators should all work to change the current “unwieldy” adoption processes.

Publishers should continue to address the problems researchers have identified in teachers’ manuals and workbooks.

And finally, publishers, if they are going to make constructive changes, need models of good materials. Researchers who offer criticism should be prepared to make concrete suggestions for improving the texts they dislike.

Fundamental Premises Questioned

The researchers first sought--and got--the publishers’ attention in February 1981, when the two groups met in Tarrytown, N.Y. At that meeting, they described study results that raised questions about the fundamental premises on which books for beginning readers are based. But the researchers emphasized that they were aware that publishers shared responsibility with educators and others.

“We have been and we will continue to be highly critical of school materials as they are now,” said Richard Anderson, director of the Center for the Study of Reading and professor of educational psychology at the University of Illinois. “But we do not single out publishers as the villains who do not do their job.”

Hence, the discussion focused on two issues: Considering the demands of the market, what can publishers do now to improve basal reading materials? And how can the two groups work together to inform educators of the issues?

The overuse and abuse of “readability formulas,” both researchers and publishers agreed, is one problem that educators should be made aware of promptly.

Although not all reading researchers agree, most of those attending the meeting concurred that such measurements should be applied only in very narrow circumstances. Some were highly critical of the formulas, which one researcher described as being “about as scientific as Alice in Wonderland.”

Based on theories developed in the 1920’s and 1930’s, the various formulas are designed to quantify the level of difficulty of a particular piece of writing, according to Andee Rubin, a cognitive scientist with Bolt Beranek, a private research firm based in Boston.

Although they vary in their precise design, all of the formulas are based on the same premise: longer words and longer sentences make a piece of writing more difficult to read, Ms. Rubin said. The “readability score” assigned to a given piece of writing is usually calculated on the basis of a weighted formula. Word difficulty may be measured against a list of “familiar words"; sentence difficulty is generally measured by the length of the sentence.

The score that results from the calculations identifies the grade level for which a given text is appropriate, Ms. Rubin said. But she and other researchers emphasized that the score is intended to indicate a range--that is, the material could be suitable for students several grades higher or lower.

The formulas are used mainly in two ways, Ms. Rubin said: to “match readers with appropriate texts” and to “produce appropriate texts through [adaptation] or construction.” Virtually all publishers use them in developing texts, and many teachers use them to assess material, according to Ms. Rubin.

The formulas, according to Ms. Rubin, have inherent problems, principal among them the fact that they are constructed on a “shaky statistical basis.” Part of the process of determining “readability” involves comparing material with “other independent measures” of difficulty. But because the other measures are no more statistically valid than the formulas, a “kind of circularity” is introduced into the process, Ms. Rubin said.

In addition, studies have shown that “the variables that readability measures are not the things that make a text hard or easy,” she said. Other factors, which are not incorporated into the formulas, are equally important, many researchers say.

For example, the inferences that a reader must draw, the complexity of the ideas presented, and the structure of the material all affect the ease with which a reader can understand it, the researchers argue.

Educators and publishers compound the problematic quality of the formulas by misusing them in several ways, Ms. Rubin said. Most often, someone uses the formulas to modify material to make it more “readable.”

For example, a teacher or text developer may wish to adapt a story--perhaps a chapter from a respected children’s book--for use in the first grade. He or she may attempt to lower the readability level by shortening the sentences, replacing connective words with periods, deleting nonessential words, and the like. When a readability test is rerun, the results may show that the level is two grades lower than it was to begin with.

But that result, Ms. Rubin said, does not mean that the material is easier to read and to understand. In some cases, she and other researchers stressed, the material may be more difficult because it is choppier and lacks a cohesive structure.

The formulas are also misused in constructing reading texts, Ms. Rubin said. Text developers may choose words to teach students about a particular vowel sound, not because they are the best words to convey meaning. “The formulas are used even more freely in constructing texts for poor readers,” she said. “The result is okay phonetically but frustrating on a comprehension level.”

To minimize misuse, Ms. Rubin suggested, educators and publishers should use readability “only as a rough guide to text selection and ordering, only when all other pedagogical considerations have been applied.”

She also recommended that readability formulas not be used for adapting existing texts, constructing new texts, or as “dominant selection criteria.”

Heavy Reliance on Scores

The publishers are acutely aware of the problems of readability formulas--but they are equally aware that textbook selection committees rely heavily on the scores when choosing which reading texts to buy, according to Nancy Sargeant, executive editor for reading for Houghton Mifflin Company.

Since many states approve texts on a statewide basis, the failure to provide adequate readability information can jeopardize sales worth thousands of dollars, she said.

“All of us are confronted with the issue of readability somewhere in the publishing process,” said Ms. Sargeant.

“I agree with many of the criticisms. But I’m going to talk about the reality of the situation--the marketplace.”

“There is a growing emphasis on scores” in every facet of education, not only in the area of readability, Ms. Sargeant said. “A number is what’s important.”

“We all know that shortening sentences and removing connectors lessens comprehension,” she said. But if publishers try to explain that syntactic difficulty or other factors also should be considered when assessing materials, textbook-adoption committees “think that you’re explaining why your readability [score] isn’t right.”

In addition, she said, many educators do not understand that readability scores are only a rough measure of difficulty. “Teachers don’t under-stand that readability is a range,” she said.

The process by which states and school districts choose textbooks also plays a part in perpetuating the use of inadequate texts, the two groups agreed. Roger Farr, a re-searcher at Indiana University, is conducting the first comprehensive study of state-adoption practices. Both publishers and researchers are hopeful that his findings may precipitate changes by improving under-standing of the process.

To date, Mr. Farr told the group, the study has tentatively identified some of the criteria used by committees to select texts. The inclusion of “skills” in the material is one key factor, Mr. Farr found. But although the committees are insistent on having large numbers of skills included, they are less concerned with how well these skills are taught.

“The criteria emphasize the existence of each item, not how well it’s covered,” Mr. Farr said.

In addition, he said, the data indicate that those chosen to review text materials have too little time to scrutinize the materials carefully. As a result, he said, they end up “counting” the number of skills, tests, and other quantifiable items that are covered.

The Illinois researchers have also identified numerous problems with the teachers’ manuals and work-books that accompany reading series. In a study of five basal reading series, Dolores Durkin, one of the center’s researchers and a professor of elementary education at the university, found that the teachers’ manuals included virtually no material designed to improve students’ comprehension of their reading.

Teachers’ manuals rely on “assessment,” or frequent questioning of students; “mentioning,” i.e. “doing too little with a topic to make a difference"; and “flitting” from topic to unrelated topic, Ms. Durkin said.

Moreover, the practice exercises included in the manuals are often not related to the material that students have just read, she continued.

Roxanne McLean, editorial vice president for Scott, Foresman and Co.'s reading program for students from kindergarten through the 8th grade, pointed out that it takes years to develop a reading series; most of the series now being used were well under way when the Illinois researchers began reporting their study findings, she said. Janet Garnier, president of Editorial Options, Inc., a curriculum-development company that works with publishers, noted that materials that teach comprehension are being issued now. And Mary Ansaldo, vice president and editor-in-chief for the Economy Company/Bowmar Noble Publishers, added that questioning students is a valid way of teaching comprehension.

In another study, Jean Osborn of the Illinois center found that some workbooks are confusing and poorly coordinated with text.

Ms. Osborn provided a list of 20 guidelines for “workbook tasks.” These tasks, she suggested, should:

  • Include “systematic and cumulative review of what has already been taught";
  • Reflect the most important and appropriate aspects of what is being taught in the reading program;
  • Contain, in a form that is easily accessible to teachers and students, additional tasks for students who need extra help;
  • Present material in a logical sequence, and
  • Include some tasks that are fun and have an “obvious payoff”

Some publishers said that they have already incorporated these suggestions into their materials.

Such models and suggestions, the publishers responded, are extremely helpful to them as they seek to improve reading materials. But until teachers, administrators, and text-book-selection committee’ understand the problems that exist now, they pointed out, it will be difficult to sell them on new materials.

Researchers who want to be helpful, they suggested, should remain aware of the marketplace pressures and the lengthy process involved in creating a textbook. Sometimes, they hinted, the researchers dis-played some naïvete about that process. Errors do creep in; not all problems can be attributed to lack of planning As one publisher remarked incredulously, “Do you really think that we spend million to $12 million and don’t plan?

A version of this article appeared in the September 29, 1982 edition of Education Week as Researchers and Publishers Explore Ways To Correct Deficiencies in Reading Texts

Events

Ed-Tech Policy Webinar Artificial Intelligence in Practice: Building a Roadmap for AI Use in Schools
AI in education: game-changer or classroom chaos? Join our webinar & learn how to navigate this evolving tech responsibly.
Education Webinar Developing and Executing Impactful Research Campaigns to Fuel Your Ed Marketing Strategy 
Develop impactful research campaigns to fuel your marketing. Join the EdWeek Research Center for a webinar with actionable take-aways for companies who sell to K-12 districts.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Privacy & Security Webinar
Navigating Cybersecurity: Securing District Documents and Data
Learn how K-12 districts are addressing the challenges of maintaining a secure tech environment, managing documents and data, automating critical processes, and doing it all with limited resources.
Content provided by Softdocs

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Curriculum History Group Finds Little Evidence of K-12 'Indoctrination'
Most social science educators say they keep politics out of the classroom, but need help identifying good curriculum resources
6 min read
Photo of U.S. flag in classroom.
iStock / Getty Images Plus
Curriculum How an International Baccalaureate Education Cuts Through the ‘Noise’ on Banned Topics
IB programs offer students college credit in high school and advanced learning environments.
9 min read
James Minor teaches his IB Language and Literature class at Riverview High School in Sarasota, Fla., on Jan. 23, 2024.
James Minor teaches his IB Language and Literature class at Riverview High School in Sarasota, Fla., on Jan. 23, 2024.
Zack Wittman for Education Week
Curriculum Explainer Social Studies and Science Get Short Shrift in Elementary Schools. Why That Matters
Learn why the subjects play a key role in elementary classrooms—and how new policy debates may shift the status quo.
10 min read
Science teacher assists elementary school student in the classroom
iStock / Getty Images Plus
Curriculum Letter to the Editor Finance Education in Schools Must Be More Than Personal
Schools need to teach students to see how their spending impacts others, writes the executive director of the Institute for Humane Education.
1 min read
Education Week opinion letters submissions
Gwen Keraval for Education Week