God is dead.
This famous statement coined by Freidrich Nietzsche [1] seems no more complex than the words "the cat is black," however the simplicity of the phrasing betrays the deeper implications of the claim. For such reasons a variety of tools and algorithms have emerged that are intended to assess text difficulty for readers, but there is little agreement on what factors to examine in doing so.
A cursory exploration of online text assessment tools [2,3] indicates that Nietzsche's bold statement is accessible to children at a grade one reading comprehension level. While it may be easy to dismiss these tools as unreliable, the claim grammatically utilizes the nominative case (eg. I am, it is), which is amongst the simplest of language conventions [4]. It therefore begs the question of how we might assess the difficulty of a particular text for an audience.
Factors such as vocabulary, word and sentence length [5], and the inclusion of diagrams and images are often considered to play a role in reader comprehension, and are considered surface features of a text. From these elements one might understand how an objective algorithm could mislabel the death of God as an idea accessible to children---the vocabulary is familiar, the words and sentence short, and the structure is linear. Clearly when it comes to reading comprehension, the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts [6].
If generic text assessment tools cannot be relied upon as to provide accurate measures of difficulty, we must look beyond the surface features of our written language to establish meaning. While there is no firm consensus on what we might examine, the deeper features of a text are generally considered to be comprised of aspects such as ideation, organization, and structure [7]. These characteristics vary greatly between texts, and ultimately the perceived difficulty is subjective based on the prior experiences of the reader. For example, today's digital learner may have picked up on my use of the universally lambasted font Comic Sans in the lead image of this article, possibly calling into question whether any part of this analysis was ever written in earnest.
 |
| Warners Bros. Pictures, 1983 (Accessed 2015-10-28 http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/outsiders.html) |
Stay gold, Ponyboy.
If reader experiences can dictate success in comprehension, it seems obvious that we might choose texts that complement classroom demographics. This however is not simple in practice as each student's background will dictate their vocabulary [8], knowledge, and identity [9], as well as their interests and motivations for reading [10]. While we are unable to choose our students based on which texts we wish to study, educators have the ability to differentiate instruction by providing access to a variety of texts in the classroom.
There is however one caveat with regard to diversifying our classroom texts, and it is that we do not use it as an excuse for students to avoid unfamiliar resources entirely. For example, a student originating from outside of North America might have difficulty identifying with teenage gang fights in The Outsiders, and could find the story less meaningful as a result. But just as the merit of science fiction and fantasy genres should not be immediately dismissed simply because they pose vocabulary and contexts that are unfamiliar to students, we cannot always allow students to avoid texts from an unfamiliar background. That said, providing a diverse selection of texts in the classroom will not only help engage students, but will also promote exploration and literacy.
Differentiated instruction and educational technology are both huge movements in education today, but how might we consolidate the two concepts to assess text difficulty in a meaningful manner? Unfortunately for educators, the two ideas remain largely exclusive. Algorithms might still be useful in skimming the surface features of a text, but beyond this a teacher must make a comprehensive action plan in order to set out differentiation and expectations. All in all, text assessment comes down to what has always been the most important factor in teaching: simply knowing your students and understanding their needs.
[1] Nietzsche, F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Oxford University Press, 2005.
[2] https://readability-score.com/
[3] http://read-able.com/
[4] Wheelock F. M. Wheelock's Latin Grammar. 4th ed., revised. New York : Harper Collins, 1992.
[5] Hiebert, E.H., Pearson, P.D. An Examination of Current Text Difficulty Indices With Early Reading Texts. University of California, Santa Cruz, 2010.
[6] Interestingly, this could be a misquote of psychologist Kurt Koffka. Whole can be seen as a mistranslation of the original other.
[7] Murphy, S. Assessing Text Difficulty for Students. Research Monograph #44, January 2013.
[8] Johnston, P. Prior Knowledge and Reading Comprehension Test Bias. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 1984.
[9] Fox, E. The Role of Reader Characteristics in Processing and Learning from Informational Text. Review of Educational Research, 79, 2009.
[10] Applegate, A.J., & Applegate, M. D. A Study of Thoughtful Literacy and the Motivation to Read. The Reading Teacher, 64, 2010.
