What Research Says About Text Complexity and Learning to Read Article Critique
Article Synthesis and Critique
What Research Says About Text Complexity and Learning to Read, focuses on the how text complexity
influences the acquisition of reading skills. According to the article, there is a large amount of research to
suggest that texts read with 95% or greater accuracy has a direct impact on reading achievement
(Allington, Mccuiston, and Billen, 2015). This article seems to be reactionary to some of the comments
made by the CCSSO about text complexity. The CCSSO has made some claims that text complexity has
decreased over time without supporting evidence (Allington, et al., 2015).
The first part of this paper is dedicated to proving that schools have not been lowering the complexity of
texts. Allington, et al., (2015) argues that:
We have 70 years of evidence that children are more likely to learn to read
and to learn content when the text can be read with a high level of accuracy and comprehension. (p. 492)
Several researchers have been examined to provide further evidence. Emmet Betts’ levels of text
complexity in 1946 are the first piece of research cited by Allington, et al., (2015). Betts’ levels suggest
that students reach their independent level when they can read with 99% accuracy (Allington, et al.,
2015).
However, Betts’ levels have been under question over the past 40 years (Allington, et al., 2015). In one
study, Anderson et al. (1979), reports that oral reading has a negative correlation with reading growth.
There are several other researchers who have questioned Betts’ levels: (Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, & Gross,
2007; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Deno, 1982; Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981; Gickling & Armstrong, 1985;
Jorgenson, Klein, & Kumar, 1977 ; Morris, Bloodgood, Perney, Frye, Kucan, & Trathen, 2011 ; O’
Connor, Bell, Harty, Larkin, Sackor, & Zigmond, 2002; Treptoe, Burns, & McComas, 2007).
There are three main areas that explain why students who can read with 95% accuracy have better reading
success: engagement, vocabulary, and self-regulating behaviors (Allington, et al., 2015). First Jorgenson
(1977) states when less complex texts, in relation to instructional level, are presented to students they
worked more independently and increased engagement. Secondly, independent reading is the best source
for vocabulary acquisition according to (Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson,
1985; Stahl, 1999; Swanborn & DeGlopper, 1999). Lastly, Leslie and Osol (1978) explain students are
able to use decoding and self-corrective strategies most effectively when reading texts with 95%
accuracy.
To emphasize the importance of reading text with 95% accuracy, Allington, et al., (2015) examines
several studies that show that lower accuracy levels are achieved when students are presented with text
that is too difficult.
As a result, the authentic research presented by the author proves the following: that texts have not
decreased in complexity; the research concludes the relationship between texts that can be read at 95%
accuracy and reading achievement. Also, that decisions on increasing text complexity should be based on
more reliable research, otherwise there could be a negative effect on reading achievement.
Professional Literature Connections
Allington, et al., (2015) mentions several strategies to assist in reading fluency like silent reading
and assisted reading. Rasinski and Young (2017) second the notion of both. They both assert that
acquiring fluency can be linked to modeling and assisted reading aids in reading achievement. Rasinski
and Young (2017) also argue the importance of fluency instruction and suggest that speed should not be
the main goal in acquiring fluency as the CCSS mandate.
Pardo (2004) uses an earlier Rasinski work (2003) to reinforce the argument that fluency
instruction aids in engagement, requires modeling, and the importance of reading aloud to students. Pardo
(2004) also suggest a long list of concrete ways teachers can help develop reading skills. All of her
suggestions are mentioned in Allington, et al., (2015). The main skills necessary to develop reading
comprehension are decoding skills, vocabulary, and engagement (Pardo, 2004). Decoding is taught by
focusing on phonemic awareness and phonics. Pardo also suggests that teaching vocabulary is necessary
because presenting a text with too many unknown words, it will be interfere with the comprehension of
the text as a whole. Finally, to improve engagement students should be provided text that is interesting
and given a variety of choices of text to read.
McLaughlin and Overturf (2012) explains that although the CCSS are predetermined set of skills
students are required to learn, there is room for educators to decide how to reach these goals as well as the
ability to add necessary topics. This room could allow for a teacher to include fluency instruction as
mentioned in Rasinski and Young (2017) while teaching to the CCSS standards. The author describes
these standards as wide and leave room for educators to implement them in a way that suites their
teaching styles.
Implications for Instruction/Policy
There are three common skills that each of this week’s authors agrees on to develop reading skills:
modeling, vocabulary, and engagement.
Educators can improve reading fluency through modeling strategies like thinking allowed, demonstrating
and creating meaning (Pardo, 2004). Rasinski and Young (2017) suggest that fluent peer readers as well
as teachers can accomplish modeling. Allington, et al., (2015) and Rasinski and Young (2017) suggest
that reading aloud is the best evidence based form of modeling. Reading aloud can take many forms like
choral reading, round robin, and popcorn.
Vocabulary development is directly related to reading fluency (Allington, et al., 2015). There are many
ways to develop a student’s vocabulary. Independent reading time, with texts that can be read with 95%
accuracy, would help develop vocabulary (Allington, et al., 2015). Providing background knowledge and
opportunities to use the new vocabulary in meaningful ways (Pardo, 2004). To accomplish this a teacher
can use graphic organizers, give the students a variety of examples of how to use the new words and give
the students opportunities to use the new vocabulary before reading.
Engagement is like a thread that is woven between each element of reading fluency. Engagement can be
found in both vocabulary development and modeling. One way to improve engagement is by giving
students choices in the text they read. Educators can also create better relationships with their students to
align the student’s interest to reading material.
Allington, et al., (2015) investigates a variety of strategies that children use to learn to read. The three
techniques I chose for this are just a few and if used effectively they can help students to acquire reading
skills.
Conclusion
This article presented a very precise and well researched idea. There are many points that I will
now have to consider when confronted with changes in education.
Allington, et al., (2015) made me think about what the sources are for new ideas in education. I am now
more aware of the necessity to perform my own research into a new approach instead of taking it at full
market value. I really appreciate all the care of research that went into proving their point.
There are many points of Allington, et al., (2015) which I agree with. For example, texts read with 95% or
greater accuracy has a direct impact on reading achievement. I felt this was well proven with evidencebased research over the past 40 years. This is also something you can see in action in today’s classroom.
Try to give a student text above their level, and watch them struggle, and eventually lose engagement.
I also agree with the importance of reading aloud. Listening is by far is one of the most important ways to
begin to develop phonological awareness. Reading text repeatedly also helps students’ comprehension.
Moreover, I agree with the connection between engagement, vocabulary, and self-regulating behaviors
and appropriate level texts. Students are more engaged when they see they can accomplish a task, and in
turn will stay on task.
A few ideas that I don’t agree with were one, the idea that the CCSS is so rigid that an educator cannot
add on. For example, Rasinski and Young (2017) claim that the CCSS should include fluency. However, I
feel that if the standards are too specific, we will lose the freedom to choose how we teach. Second,
although I do agree that the CCSS authors did make some claims without enough supporting evidence,
their goals are valid. They want to make students college ready (McLaughlin and Overturf, 2012). I also
like the idea of having a common standard shared between each state.
Just as Allington, et al., (2015) showed me not to take everything at face value without evidence, I don’t
want to throw out the CCSS completely. There were valuable insights in the article for this critique that
will resonate with me for a long time.