Putting text complexity in context: Refocusing on comprehension of complex text

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 115, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 270-289

  Valencia, Sheila W ^a   Wixson, Karen K ^b   David Pearson, P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928112643     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: 15548279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/678296     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bormuth, J. R. (1966). Readability: A new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 79–132.
2. Bruce, B. C., Osborn, J., & Commeyras, M. (1994). The content and curricular validity of the 1992 NAEP reading framework. In R. Glaser & R. L. Linn (Eds.), The trial state assessment: Prospects and realities; background studies (pp. 187–216). Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
3. California State Board of Education. (1987). English-language arts curriculum framework and criteria. Sacramento, CA: Author.
4. Callahan, M., Benson-Griffo, V., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Teacher knowledge and teaching reading. In F. Falk-Ross, S. Szabo, M. B. Sampson, & M. M. Foote (Eds.), Literacy issues during changing times: A call to action, 30th yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 37–62). Logan, UT: College Reading Association.
5. Chall, J. S., Conard, S., & Harris, S. (1977). An analysis of textbooks in relation to declining SAT scores. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board.
6. Davison A., & Kantor, R. N. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 187–209.
7. Gamson, D. A., Lu, X., & Eckert, S. A. (2013). Challenging the research base of the Common Core State Standards: A historical reanalysis of text complexity. Educational Researcher, 42(7), 381–391.
8. Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson,& R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 311–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulokowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-metrix: Providing multilevel analysis of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234.
10. Green, G., & Davison, A. (Eds.). (1988). Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Hayes, D. P., Wolfer, L. T., & Wolfe, M. F. (1996). Sourcebook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-verbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 489–508.
12. Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Common Core State Standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 44–51.
13. Kansas Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid_4778#TextRes
14. Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
15. Klare, G. R. (1984). Readability. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 681–744). New York: Longman.
16. Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2013). Assessment of reading and writing difficulty (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
17. Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 241–269). New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. National Assessment Governing Board. (2010). Reading framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19. National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Washington, DC: CCSSO & National Governors Association.
20. Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., & Liben, M. (2012). Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance. Retrieved from www.ccsso.org
21. Ozuru, Y., Rowe, M., O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Where’s the difficulty in standardized reading tests: The passage or the question? Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1001–1015.
22. Pearson, P. D. (1974–1975). The effects of grammatical complexity on children’s comprehension, recall, and conception of semantic relations. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155–192.
23. Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
24. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R& D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
25. Stenner, A. J., & Burdick, D. S. (1997). The objective measurement of reading comprehension. Durham, NC: MetaMetrics.
26. Valencia, S. W., & Pearson, P. D. (1986). Reading assessment initiatives in the state of Illinois, 1985–1986. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Education.
27. Valencia, S. W., Pearson, P. D., & Wixson, K. K. (2011). Assessing and tracking progress in reading comprehension: The search for keystone elements in college and career readiness. Princeton, NJ: Center for K–12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS.
28. White, S. (2011). Understanding adult functional literacy. New York: Routledge.