The Importance of Oral Language for Reading Comprehension Among

AdolescentsBarbara Foorman, Ph.D., Professor & Director, Florida Center for Reading Research & the REL

Southeast

This information is being provided as part of a webinar administered by the U.S. Department of Education, with support from the Institute of Education Sciences’ National Center for Education Research (NCER) and National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE).

Specifically, the research reported here was supported by IES/NCER through a subaward to Florida State University from Grant R305F100005 to the Educational Testing Service as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Information about the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative can be found here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/projects/program.asp?ProgID=62

Information and materials for this webinar are also supported by IES/NCEE’s Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at Florida State University (Contract ED-IES-12-C-0011) as resources and examples for the viewer's convenience. Their inclusion is not intended as an endorsement by the Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast or its funding source, the Institute of Education Sciences.

In addition, the instructional practices and assessments discussed or shown in this presentation is not intended to mandate, direct, or control a State’s, local educational agency’s, or school’s specific instructional content, academic achievement system and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction. State and local programs may use any instructional content, achievement system and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction they wish.

Outcomes• Understanding of academic language and

instructional implications• Understanding of features of text

cohesion and how to apply them to writing instruction

• Knowledge of how academic language relates to writing in response to reading

• Knowledge of how to engage students in academic discourse in the classroom

What is Oral Language?Select the best answer(s)a) System in which spoken words convey

knowledge, thought, and expressionb) System for communicating signs &

emotionsc) Phonology, morphology, semantics, and

pragmaticsd) Orthography, structural analysis, and

mnemonics

What is Oral Language?The best answer(s) are in red:

a) System in which spoken words convey knowledge, thought, and expression

b) System for communicating signs & emotions

c) Phonology, morphology, semantics, and pragmatics

d) Orthography, structural analysis, and mnemonics

Language

Content

UseForm

Phonology, Morphology, Syntax

Pragmatics, (discourse) how language is used

Semantics (vocabulary lexicon), Concepts such as synonyms, antonyms, multiple meanings, similes, metaphors

What is Reading?Select the best answer(s)a) Memorizing visual shapes and sound

segmentsb) Pronouncing sound-spelling patternsc) Conversion of written forms to oral

language formsd) Obtaining meaning from printe) Transcribing sounds to written form

What is Reading?The best answer(s) are:a) Memorizing visual shapes and sound

segmentsb) Pronouncing sound-spelling patternsc) Conversion of written forms to oral

language formsd) Obtaining meaning from printe) Transcribing sounds to written form

Rayner et al. (2001)

Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986)

• Posits that reading comprehension will develop to the same level as listening comprehension

Decoding of text

Comprehension of language

Reading to gain

meaning

Academic Language is at the Core of Literacy Instruction

10

Word Meanings

Text

• because it allows literate people to discuss literary products (and was previously referred to as extended discourse or decontextualized language)

• because contextual cues and shared assumptions are minimized by explicitly encoding referents for pronouns, actions, and locations

• because it is the language of disciplinary text

What Makes Written Language

(i.e., Text) Difficult to Understand?

11

Qualitative Ratings• Structure

o Low complexity: simple, well-marked, conventionalo High complexity: complex, implicit, unconventional

• Language Conventionality and Clarity: literal, clear, contemporary, and conversational language vs. figurative, ironic, ambiguous, purposefully misleading, archaic/unfamiliar, academic & domain-specific language

• Knowledge Demands: Texts with few assumptions about reader’s life experiences & depth of cultural/literary and content/discipline knowledge are less complex than those with more assumptions.

• Levels of Meaning (literary text) or Purpose (informational text):

o Single vs. multiple levels of meaning (e.g., satire)o Explicit vs. implicit

Coh-Metrix: Dimensions

• Narrativity: how story-like

• Syntactic simplicity: how short & familiar the clauses and sentences are

• Word Concreteness: imaginable vs. abstract

• Referential cohesion: overlap of N, V, adj., and major ideas

• Deep cohesion: presence of causal, temporal, & logical connectives in the text

Referential Cohesion Examples

• Argument overlap: father-father(s); she-she

• Noun overlap: mother-mother; not mother-mothers

• Stem overlap: gives, gave, giving, giver

When water is heated, it boils and eventually evaporates.

When the heat is reduced, it turns back into a liquid form.

Effects of Referential Cohesion

• Lack of argument overlap increases reading time

• Noun and argument overlap predict comprehension of informational text

• Semantic relatedness is shown to predict reading comprehension

• A high density of pronouns compared with the density of noun phrases creates referential cohesion problems

Causal Cohesion: Examples

• Causal verbs: refers to change of state, actions, or events– break, freeze, move, enable, make

• Causal particles and connectives– thus, therefore, the consequence of– because, if, when, also, on the other

hand

Effects of Causal Cohesion

• Causally related events are read faster than other related events

• Causal cohesion is important in narrative comprehension

• Coherence suffers when the ratio of causal particles to causal verbs is small

[Coherence = cohesion × reader ability]

How the Smartphone Killed Typing—

But Started an AI RevolutionSteve Jobs often swam against the tide of prevailing opinion. (“You can't make a mouse without two buttons!” “You can't make a computer without a floppy drive!” “You can't make a cell phone without a swappable battery!”) He turned out to be right many times.

Occasionally, though, his decisions took the industry into awkward directions from which we've never really recovered. Jobs was fixed, for example, on the idea of a cell phone without any keys. The iPhone became a hit, it spawned imitators, and the rest is history (or the future, depending on how you look at it).Eliminating the keyboard has its perks. It leaves more room on the phone for screen area—for photographs, movies, maps and reading material. Only one activity really suffers: entering text.

The first iPhone offered an on-screen keyboard. The advantage, as Jobs pointed out, was it could disappear when you didn't need it. It could also change languages or alphabets in a flash.

But at its core, typing on glass is slow and unsatisfying, especially compared with using a physical keyboard such as the BlackBerry's. The history of contemporary smartphones has been a seven-year quest to fix that problem.

The original iPhone tried to help in two minor ways, which are still at work today. First, the on-screen keys change size based on probability (not visually but behind the scenes). Second, there is autocomplete: spawner of a billion curses, source of much hilarity but also often quite helpful.

[continued in Scientific American, Nov. 18, 2014]

Qualitative Rating of Smartphone Passage

• Structure:• Moderate complexity: some inferences;

unconventional; some chronology; subgenre traits (from technology)

• Language Conventionality and Clarity: • Some figurative and domain-specific language

(abstract technology terms)

• Knowledge Demands: • Assumes some technological knowledge

•Levels of Meaning (literary text) or Purpose (informational text):

• Somewhat implicit purpose of defending Jobs’ decision not to have physical keyboard on iPhones

How the Smart Phone Killed Typing

Text Complexity Measure ScoreReadability Measures Lexile® 950 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 7.3Coh-Metrix Factors (percentile) Narrativity 50 Syntactic Simplicity 68 Word Concreteness 29 Referential Cohesion 2 Deep Cohesion 82

Coh-Metrix: Dimensions• Narrativity: 50%

– Informational but some story elements

• Syntactic simplicity: 68%– Sentences are fairly short; clauses and sentences are mostly

familiar

• Word Concreteness: 29%– Low word concreteness; many abstract words hard to

visualize

• Referential cohesion: 2%– Low: little overlap in words and ideas between sentences

• Deep cohesion: 82%– High: relatively more connecting words that help clarify

relations between events, ideas, and information

Writing in Response to Reading the Passage about the Smartphone

• According to the text, which technological advances have most impacted changes in digital text entry?

• According to the text, what are the most significant issues facing engineers in developing the perfect digital text entry system?

• Describe at least three benefits to cell phone design that have led to sacrifices in typing proficiency for consumers.

What were your answers to the following prompts?

Writing in Response to Reading the Passage about the Smartphone

• According to the text, which technological advances have most impacted changes in digital text entry?

What were your answers to the first prompt?

Writing in Response to Reading the Passage about the Smartphone

According to the text, which technological advances have most impacted changes in digital text entry?

speech recognition predictive text autocompletion on-screen key size (based on

probability)

What were your answers to the first prompt?

Writing in Response to Reading the Passage about the Smartphone

• According to the text, what are the most significant issues facing engineers in developing the perfect digital text entry system?

What were your answers to the second prompt?

Writing in Response to Reading the Passage about the Smartphone

According to the text, what are the most significant issues facing engineers in developing the perfect digital text entry system? accents & dialects in speech recognition (lo-fi

audio) typing on glass is slow & unsatisfying making predictive text catch what you intend divided attention between focus on keys &

predictive text suggestions predictive text doesn’t reflect style in different

contexts (e.g., texting to a friend vs. emailing your boss)

What were your answers to the second prompt?

Writing in Response to Reading the Passage about the Smartphone

• Describe at least three benefits to cell phone design that have led to sacrifices in typing proficiency for consumers.

What were your answers to the third prompt?

Writing in Response to Reading the Passage about the Smartphone

Describe at least three benefits to cell phone design that have led to sacrifices in typing proficiency for consumers.

photos & movies reading material maps

What were your answers to the third prompt?

Study of Oral Language & Reading in 4th-10th Grades

(Foorman et al., in press)

• 1,792 students from 18 schools in 2 large urban districts in the SE. 25.5%-100% free and reduced price lunch, with median of 59%. 6 of 18 schools were Title 1.

• Integrated dataset: 3 cohorts over 3 years. • Planned missing data design to reduce

testing burden yields data considered missing completely at random.

 Table 1 Final Number of Participants by Grade, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity

Grade NFemal

e

Race/Ethnicity (in percentages)

Asian BlackHispani

cIndia

nMulti-

culturalOther

White

Not Reporte

d

4271

58 6 30 26 1 4 0 28 6

5321

56 5 35 23 1 3 0 23 9

6309

55 5 26 18 0 5 1 39 5

7299

51 3 9 38 0 2 0 25 21

8232

51 3 9 36 0 2 0 27 22

9238

61 4 12 24 0 7 2 45 5

10122

65 6 9 24 1 7 0 45 8

Research Questions

• Does a 1-factor, 3-factor, 4-factor, or bi-factor model of oral language fit better when examining the dimensionality of measures of syntax, vocabulary, and decoding fluency in 4th-10th grades?

• What are the unique effects of the best fitting oral language and decoding fluency factors in predicting latent reading comprehension in 4th-10th grades?

Measures• Syntax (i.e., sentence use): Recalling Sentences

(CELF-4) and Grammaticality Judgment (CASL)

• Vocabulary: PPVT-4; SARA vocab & morph awareness

• Decoding Fluency: TOWRE (nonwords & real words)

• Outcome: Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test-4; FL Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT 2.0)

SWE B

PDE A

PDE B

SARA M

SWE A

CELF

CASL

PPVT

SARA V

GMRT

Reading Comprehension

Decoding

Vocabulary

Syntax

Oral Language

FCAT

.34**

.26**

.17**

.14

.25

.23

.30*

.28*

.80*

.68

.19

.10

.03

.64**

.56**

.67**

.71**

.86**

.79**

.87**

.88**

.84**

.85**

.89*

.30

.40**

.87**

.24

.01

.80**

.71**

.16

.36**

.50**

.33**

.82**

Grade 8 SEM: Bi-Factor Model

Results

• Bi-factor model fit the data best in all 7 grades and explained 72%-99% of the variance in reading comprehension (RC)

• Specific factors of syntax & vocab explained significant unique variance in RC in 1 gr each

• Decoding fluency significantly correlated with RC and oral language (OL) in all grades, but in the presence of OL was not significantly associated with RC

Implications• Results support a bi-factor model of lexical

knowledge rather than the 3-factor model of the Simple View of Reading, with the vast amount of variance in reading comprehension explained by a general oral language factor.

• Thus, to improve RC among adolescents, educators must build OL→Written Language connections

• In short, teach academic language!

Teaching Academic Language

• Teach lexical quality (i.e., word’s pronunciation, spelling, etymology, multiple meanings, derivations)

• Teach connectives – words or phrases that link clauses and sentences together to create more complex text.

• Teach pronoun reference; subj-verb agreement

• Practice cohesive elements in writing

Teaching Academic Content &Literacy to English Learners in

Elem & MS1. Teach academic vocabulary

words intensively across several days  using a variety of instructional activities

2. Integrate oral/written English language instruction in content-area teaching

3. Provide regular, structured opportunities to develop written language skills

4. Provide small-group instructional intervention to students struggling in areas of literacy & English language development

Effective Practices for Literacy Instruction

1. Provide explicit vocabulary instruction. 

2. Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction.

3. Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation. 

4. Increase student motivation and engagement in literacy learning.

5. Make available intensive and individualized interventions for struggling readers that can be provided by trained specialists. 

1. Vocabulary Strategies

• Morphological Analysis – ex. audience, audible, auditory

• Word Origin Tracing – ex. Greek/Latin roots

• Semantic Mapping – visual displays of words

• Synonyms & Antonyms• Context Clues

2. Comprehension Strategies

• Summarizing• Finding the main idea• Self-questioning• Paraphrasing• Drawing inferences• Graphic Organizers

Take-home Points• Make academic language a focus of

instruction in all content areas• Teach students the features of text

cohesion and teach them to use these features in their writing

• Build academic language by writing in response to reading in the content areas

• Have students engage in academic discourse in the classroom

Thank You! Comments or Questions?

bfoorman@fcrr.org

References• Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creating robust vocabulary. NY:

Guilford.• Foorman, B., Koon, S., Petscher, Y., Mitchell, Al., Truckenmiller, A. (in press).

Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th-10th Grades. Journal of Educational Psychology.

• Foorman, B., & Wanzek, J. (2015). Classroom Reading Instruction for all students. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support. NY, NY: Springer Science.

• Gough, P. & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.

• Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruction, & Computers, 36, 193-202.

• Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking literacy. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.• Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading &

Writing, 2, 127- 160.• Kirby, J., & Savage, R. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities

of reading? Literacy, 42, 75-82.

References (cont.)• Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., Kelley, J., & Harris, J. (2014). Effects of academic

vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Education, Research Journal, 51(6), 1159-1194.

• Moats, L. (2000). Speech to print. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.• Perfetti, C. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader.

In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167-208). NY, NY: Oxford U. Press.

• Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22-37.

• Rayner, K., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31-74.

• Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.• Tunmer, W., & Greaney, K. (2010). Defining dyslexia. J of Learning Disabilities,

43(3), 229-243.• Vellutino, F., Tunmer, W., Jaccard, J., & Chen, S. (2007). Components of reading

ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3-32.

• Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.