Does Text Challenge Level Matter? A Research Synthesis

• In Event: 73.020 - Examinations of the Construct of Challenge: Readers, Texts, and Tasks

Abstract

Purpose: This study presents a systematic review of research related to elementary students’ reading of texts that are at challenging levels. Specifically, we (a) address how text challenge level is operationalized in research; (b) synthesize findings about relationships between the challenge level of text and reading outcomes; and (c) present an initial multidimensional framework.

Perspective: In light of the Common Core State Standards’ emphasis on text complexity, several scholars have called for consensus and integration of research and theory (e.g., Cunningham, 2013; Hiebert, 2013). The lack of research consensus on the topic--coupled with its relevance--inspired this study. We present and examine theoretical frameworks that selected studies employed. We further build upon these theories and conceptualizations to suggest a multidimensional framework related to the challenge level of text, that both acknowledges the complexity of the topic and serves as an initial attempt to frame future studies.

Methods: This study consisted of a systematic review of the literature. We searched three databases (PsycInfo, JSTOR, and ERIC) using the keywords “text complexity,” “text difficulty,” “text challenge,” “text characteristics,” “text level,” “readability,” and “reading level.” We limited our search to peer-reviewed journal articles with elementary-aged participants published in 1990 and after. After narrowing the number of articles to 252, we reviewed abstracts for reading achievement outcomes, a clear conceptualization of text challenge related to reading outcomes, and rigorous methodology. We also searched reference lists in included articles for additional studies to include (e.g., Shanahan, 2000). Finally, using Google Scholar, we looked for articles that had cited our included articles to identify additional studies. (All of this will be discussed in more detail at the session.)

Data Sources: Overall, 23 studies were included in this review. Studies were read and coded for grade, age, and proficiency levels of participants, reading outcome measures, how text challenge was operationalized, study methodology, theoretical frame, and results. Two researchers read each article. When there were disagreements on codes, consensus was reached through discussion.

Results: Text challenge level was operationalized in numerous ways. The most common operationalization was text-based (employing readability formulas or examining word frequencies (52.2%). Other studies considered challenge in terms of students’ grade level (21.7%) or students’ reading proficiencies (21.7%). One study used text-based characteristics and student based characteristics to conceptualize challenge level (4.3%).
Theoretical frameworks related to reading included the Simple View of Reading, Verbal Efficiency Theory. Theories directly framing the issues of challenge level included the Neurological Impress Method and Mesmer, Cunningham, and Hiebert’s (2012) model of text complexity. Notably, many studies did not specify a theoretical framework. Whether text challenge level influenced reading outcomes varied based on the study, particularly the grade level and reading proficiency of the student. Details will be provided in the session.

Significance: Findings from the current review demonstrate the infancy of empirical work and theoretical consensus in this area. Given the recommendation from the CCSS to have students reading higher-level texts, this study provides a much-needed synthesis of current work and directions for future research.

Authors

• Steven J. Amendum, University of Delaware

• Kristin Conradi, North Carolina State University