Can readability formulae adapt to the changing demographics of the UK school-aged population? A study on reading materials for school-age bilingual readers

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Megha Sarin , Maria Garraffa
{"title":"Can readability formulae adapt to the changing demographics of the UK school-aged population? A study on reading materials for school-age bilingual readers","authors":"Megha Sarin ,&nbsp;Maria Garraffa","doi":"10.1016/j.amper.2023.100141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Due to the increase bilingual population in the UK, it is imperative that reading materials are made accessible for them in and out of school. This study begins by reviewing literature on bilinguals reading comprehension competence, discussing findings and impact on limiting academic achievement. Much literature criticises readability formulae as a tool for grading reading materials. Readability formulae, for example, do not account for differences in reader's dialects and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, this study looks to identify those discrepancies and assess the effectiveness of two well-known readability formulae. It then compares these to a readability formula for bilinguals to identify any consistencies between outcomes, enabling identification of any categories or factors crucial in identifying the reading difficulty of texts for bilinguals not included in well-known readability formulae, specifically for school-aged children.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>20 randomly selected eBooks available for children aged 7-9 y were quantitatively evaluated using three readability formulae: Spache, Flesch-Kincaid and McAlpine EFLAW.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Based on these results, it is inconclusive if the readability formulae are consistent with each other, as they did not appear to follow the same trend and assessed different criteria. Therefore, the findings suggest no readability formula used in this study can be confidently used on its own to successfully assess the readability of books to deem suitability for bilingual readers as it is paramount that non-text factors need to be incorporated when matching books for students.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This study concludes that a formula or a new set of criteria needs to be created which incorporates the salient factors affecting reading comprehension of bilinguals to best allow educators and authors to select and modify reading materials for this growing population, to increase accessibility academically, enabling best outcomes to be achieved.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35076,"journal":{"name":"Ampersand","volume":"11 ","pages":"Article 100141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ampersand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215039023000334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Due to the increase bilingual population in the UK, it is imperative that reading materials are made accessible for them in and out of school. This study begins by reviewing literature on bilinguals reading comprehension competence, discussing findings and impact on limiting academic achievement. Much literature criticises readability formulae as a tool for grading reading materials. Readability formulae, for example, do not account for differences in reader's dialects and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, this study looks to identify those discrepancies and assess the effectiveness of two well-known readability formulae. It then compares these to a readability formula for bilinguals to identify any consistencies between outcomes, enabling identification of any categories or factors crucial in identifying the reading difficulty of texts for bilinguals not included in well-known readability formulae, specifically for school-aged children.

Method

20 randomly selected eBooks available for children aged 7-9 y were quantitatively evaluated using three readability formulae: Spache, Flesch-Kincaid and McAlpine EFLAW.

Findings

Based on these results, it is inconclusive if the readability formulae are consistent with each other, as they did not appear to follow the same trend and assessed different criteria. Therefore, the findings suggest no readability formula used in this study can be confidently used on its own to successfully assess the readability of books to deem suitability for bilingual readers as it is paramount that non-text factors need to be incorporated when matching books for students.

Conclusions

This study concludes that a formula or a new set of criteria needs to be created which incorporates the salient factors affecting reading comprehension of bilinguals to best allow educators and authors to select and modify reading materials for this growing population, to increase accessibility academically, enabling best outcomes to be achieved.

可读性公式能适应英国学龄人口结构的变化吗?学龄期双语读者阅读材料研究
由于英国双语人口的增加,在学校内外为他们提供阅读材料是势在必行的。本研究首先回顾有关双语者阅读理解能力的文献,讨论研究结果及其对限制学业成绩的影响。许多文献批评可读性公式作为阅读材料分级的工具。例如,可读性公式没有考虑到读者的方言和文化背景的差异。因此,本研究旨在识别这些差异,并评估两个众所周知的可读性公式的有效性。然后,它将这些结果与双语者的可读性公式进行比较,以确定结果之间的任何一致性,从而确定在识别未包含在众所周知的可读性公式中的双语者(特别是学龄儿童)的文本阅读困难方面的任何类别或关键因素。方法采用Spache、Flesch-Kincaid和McAlpine eflow三种可读性公式对随机抽取的20本7-9岁儿童电子书进行定量评价。基于这些结果,是否可读性公式彼此一致是不确定的,因为它们似乎没有遵循相同的趋势和评估不同的标准。因此,研究结果表明,本研究中使用的可读性公式不能自信地单独用于成功评估书籍的可读性,以确定是否适合双语读者,因为在为学生匹配书籍时,非文本因素是至关重要的。本研究的结论是,需要建立一个公式或一套新的标准,将影响双语者阅读理解的显着因素纳入其中,以便教育工作者和作者最好地为这一不断增长的人群选择和修改阅读材料,增加学术上的可及性,从而实现最佳结果。
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
Ampersand
Ampersand Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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