Readability Assessment of Advanced English Textbooks: A Corpus-Linguistic Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1301.29Keywords:
readability assessment, advanced English textbooks, corpusAbstract
As a quantitative index of the ease of reading text, readability has been used as an effective manner to assess the difficulty of reading textbooks. Based on a corpus consisting of 40 texts from two sets of advanced English textbooks published by two top-tier publishing houses in China in the same year, this paper employs three readability formulas (i.e. FRE, FKGL and LR) to examine their readability trends and differences in readability. The results show that: 1) the readability of both book sets is low, 2) no significant differences are found in three readability indices, 3) some of LR subindices, such as deep cohesion and connectivity, show an opposite tendency to the overall readability. It is claimed that: 1) both book sets are fairly difficult to read; 2) they are interchangeable in the teaching process without the absolute difference in authoritativeness; 3) the increasing trend of overall readability is moderated by controlling some subindices deliberately to keep the balance between text-reading difficulty and practical demands. This study not only benefits scholars but also teachers to evaluate and improve English textbooks.
References
Biber, D. (1998). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crossley, S. A., D. Allen & D. S. McNamara. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: a comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1): 84-102.
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2008), LSA as a measure of coherence in second language natural discourse. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love, & K. McRae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1906–1911). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin, 27(2), 37–54.
Deng, W. B. (2013). Xin, lao 21 shi ji da xue ying yu du xie jiao cheng dui bi yan jiu [A comparative study on new and old editions of intensive reading textbooks of 21st century college english]. Chang chun da xue xue bao, 23(1): 118-121.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233.
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 371–398.
Gu, X. D. & Guan, X. X. (2003). CET yue du ce shi he da xue ying yu yue du cai liao yi du du chou yang yan jiu [A sample study on readability of CET reading test and reading materials of college English]. Xi an wai yu xue yuan xue bao, 11(3): 39-42.
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Retrieved October 11, 2022, from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a006655.pdf
Klare, G. R. (1963). Measurement of readability. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Lively, B. A., & Pressey, S. L. (1923). A method for measuring the vocabulary burden of textbooks. Educational Administration and Supervision, 9(7), 389–398.
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
McNamara, D. S., A. C. Graesser & M. M. Louwerse. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: across genres and grades. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro & T. O’Reilly. Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Education: 89-116.
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Zhiqiang, C. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Sheehan, K. M., Kostin, I., Napolitano, D., & Flor, M. (2014). The Text Evaluator tool: Helping teachers and test developers select texts for use in instruction and assessment. The Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 184–209
Smith, E., & Senter, R. (1967). Automated readability index (AMRL-TR-66-22). Ohio: Aerospace Medical Re.
Yang, G. & Chen, L. J. (2013). 2000 nian yi lai gao xiao ying yu jiao cai yan jiu de xian zhuang yu si kao [A study on use of reflections on skills under various interaction patterns during asynchronous online discussion]. Wai yu yu wai yu jiaoxue, 269(2): 16-19.
Zhao, Y. & Zheng, S. T. (2006). Ji ge guo wai ying yu jiao cai ping gu ti xi de li lun fen xi [Theoretical Analysis on some foreign systems of English textbook evaluation]. Wai yu jiao xue, 27(3): 39-45.
