Developing Texts that Match Readers’ Abilities in the Sciences: Seeking an Appropriate Instructional Level

  • Richard L. Noone
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 15)


This chapter discusses one approach to developing materials for Omani science students that seeks to bridge the gap between authentic science texts and student reading abilities by adapting texts to match those abilities and building on them in ways that are grounded in L1 and L2 research. It begins with a description of the context in which the materials have been developed and the problems encountered by learners and teachers that initially motivated their development. Next, there is a description of the process that was followed in developing the texts and their respective units of study. The third part discusses two methods used to evaluate the piloting of the units: a study into the percentage of unknown words encountered by the student population and a feedback form given to teachers who used the piloted units. The chapter concludes with a discussion about some of the most important issues of text development that arose from this project.


Reading abilities Text development Authentic texts Science students Instructional level 


  1. Al-Busaidi, S. (2007). Assessing active and passive vocabulary knowledge. In P. Davidson, C. Coombe, D. Lloyd, & D. Palfreyman (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary in another language (pp. 298–310). Dubai, United Arab Emirates: TESOL Arabia.Google Scholar
  2. Blau, E. K. (1982). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cahalan, C. (2003). Oral reading fluency and optimal difficulty level in a literature based reading curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Carrell, P. L. (1987). Readability in ESL. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  5. Claridge, G. (2005). Simplification in graded readers: Measuring the authenticity of graded texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(2), 144–158.Google Scholar
  6. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. L., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing L2 reading texts at the intermediate level: An approximate replication of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy, & McNamara (2007). Language Teaching, 41(3), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curriculum Unit. (2013). Foundation program English curriculum document. Muscat, UK: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Devitt, S. (1997). Interacting with authentic texts: Multilayered processes. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (1998). Background knowledge, linguistic complexity, and second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Floyd, P., & Carrell, P. L. (1987). Effects on ESL reading of teaching cultural content schemata. Language Learning, 37(1), 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory into practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. D., Louwerse, M. L., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guariento, W., & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal., 55(4), 347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heatly, A., Nation, I. S. P., & Coxhead, A. (2002)..RANGE and FREQUENCY programs. Retrieved from
  18. Hsueh-chao, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430.Google Scholar
  19. Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King, T. W. (1987). Text modifications in ESL reading comprehension. RELC Journal, 18(2), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laufer, B. (2005). Instructed second language vocabulary learning: The fault in the ‘default hypothesis’. In A. Housen (Ed.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 311–329). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co. KG Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Linacre, J. M. (2004). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. In E. V. Smith Jr. & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models and applications (pp. 258–278). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.Google Scholar
  23. Linacre, J. M. (2014a). Winsteps-Ministeps: Rasch model computer programs program manual. Beaverton:
  24. Linacre, J. M. (2014b). Winsteps (version 3.81.0) [software]. Beaverton:
  25. Long, M., & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and applications (pp. 29–52). Singapore, Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, D. (2011). ESL reading textbooks vs. university textbooks: Are we giving students the input they may need? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mishan, F. (2004). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Portland, OR: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  28. Nation, I. S. P., & Deweerdt, J.-P. (2001). A defense of simplification. Prospect, 16(3), 55–67.Google Scholar
  29. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oh, S. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24(1), 99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strange, T. V. (2013). Exploring text difficulty and matching texts for reading achievement. Education Matters,1(2), 111–128.Google Scholar
  34. Swaffar, J. K. (1985). Reading authentic texts in a foreign language: A cognitive model. Modern Language Journal, 69(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tomlinson, B. (2011). Introduction: Principles and procedures of materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 1–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on student’s reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 159–166.Google Scholar
  37. Tweissi, A. I. (1998). The effects of the amount and type of simplification on foreign language reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 191–206.Google Scholar
  38. Win-a-rom, U. (2010). Self-assessment of word knowledge with graded readers: A preliminary study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(2), 323–338.Google Scholar
  39. Zhang, D. (2010). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 558–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Noone
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations