Adolescent reading experience, independent choices and curriculum materials

IF 2.1
Beverley Jennings , Daisy Powell , Sylvia Jaworska , Holly Joseph
{"title":"Adolescent reading experience, independent choices and curriculum materials","authors":"Beverley Jennings ,&nbsp;Daisy Powell ,&nbsp;Sylvia Jaworska ,&nbsp;Holly Joseph","doi":"10.1016/j.acorp.2025.100124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Reading comprehension ability is assessed in England within the English language GCSE exam. This is a high stakes exam, taken by all 16-year-olds, and a pass grade is needed to progress onto the next stage of education and employment. Since reading experience is an important predictor of reading comprehension ability, two different types of reading materials were explored to see how well they matched the reading required in the exam: 1) curriculum reading; and 2) independent reading. Two corpora of texts representing the two types of reading were created and explored using the methods of Corpus Linguistics. The curriculum reading corpus (CRC) had lower linguistic diversity, and higher frequency of nouns but lower frequency of adverbs, than the independent reading corpus (IRC). Exploratory analysis of the most frequent parts of speech revealed that the CRC had words that were more abstract and conceptual, whereas the IRC featured words about the concrete and the everyday, suggesting that curriculum reading presents a different type of vocabulary challenge. The CRC was not as close a match to the exam texts as the IRC. As the English language GCSE exam is used as a measure of literacy competency for both future study and future employment, this suggests that the types of texts chosen for the exam are not a good match for this purpose. The choice of texts in assessments therefore needs careful consideration.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72254,"journal":{"name":"Applied Corpus Linguistics","volume":"5 1","pages":"Article 100124"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Corpus Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666799125000073","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reading comprehension ability is assessed in England within the English language GCSE exam. This is a high stakes exam, taken by all 16-year-olds, and a pass grade is needed to progress onto the next stage of education and employment. Since reading experience is an important predictor of reading comprehension ability, two different types of reading materials were explored to see how well they matched the reading required in the exam: 1) curriculum reading; and 2) independent reading. Two corpora of texts representing the two types of reading were created and explored using the methods of Corpus Linguistics. The curriculum reading corpus (CRC) had lower linguistic diversity, and higher frequency of nouns but lower frequency of adverbs, than the independent reading corpus (IRC). Exploratory analysis of the most frequent parts of speech revealed that the CRC had words that were more abstract and conceptual, whereas the IRC featured words about the concrete and the everyday, suggesting that curriculum reading presents a different type of vocabulary challenge. The CRC was not as close a match to the exam texts as the IRC. As the English language GCSE exam is used as a measure of literacy competency for both future study and future employment, this suggests that the types of texts chosen for the exam are not a good match for this purpose. The choice of texts in assessments therefore needs careful consideration.
青少年阅读体验、自主选择和课程材料
在英国,阅读理解能力是在英语GCSE考试中评估的。这是一项高风险的考试,所有16岁的学生都要参加,通过考试才能进入下一阶段的教育和就业。由于阅读经历是阅读理解能力的重要预测因素,因此我们研究了两种不同类型的阅读材料,以了解它们与考试要求的阅读内容的匹配程度:1)课程阅读;2)独立阅读。运用语料库语言学的方法,对两种阅读类型的文本语料库进行了创建和研究。与独立阅读语料库相比,课程阅读语料库的语言多样性较低,名词出现频率较高,副词出现频率较低。对最常见词性的探索性分析表明,CRC的词汇更抽象和概念性,而IRC的词汇更具体和日常,这表明课程阅读呈现出不同类型的词汇挑战。CRC与考试文本的匹配程度不如IRC。由于英语GCSE考试被用作衡量未来学习和未来就业的识字能力,这表明为考试选择的文本类型并不适合这一目的。因此,评估中文本的选择需要仔细考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Corpus Linguistics
Applied Corpus Linguistics Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
70 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信