Module 1 Summary

I have found that when using expository or information text during content area instruction, students complain about the difficulty level and the dryness of the text; this is consistent with what was stated in the text, slideshows, and video segments from Module 1. But now more than ever, thanks to the implementation of the Common Core standards, we are expected to integrate reading and language arts instruction into content areas using a variety of informational texts.

In chapter 14 of the Vacca text, the importance of selecting non-fiction text based on the factors that contribute to the difficulty level is stressed. These factors may be text-based, such as the vocabulary, text structure, and background knowledge provided, or they may be reader based, such as the linguistic capabilities and native language of the reader. For these reasons, it is necessary to assess a text’s readability using a formula such as Fry’s Readability graph, illustrated on p. 462, to obtain an estimate of the most appropriate reading level of the reader.

            Because I teach a kindergarten class of students with special needs, many of the materials we use are teacher adapted to include more visuals and interactive components for the students. Using the Fry Readability Test, I analyzed the reading level of an adapted book that I use when I read with my students about Groundhog Day. I found that due to the average length of sentences, 7.5 sentences for 100 words, and the average number of syllables, 110 per 100 words, the adapted text is on a second grade reading level. Because of the nature of the text being analyzed, and that it is a short, single text on a single topic, the portions of the Irwin-Davis Readability checklist related to text structure and teacher’s manual do not really apply. One area where the text could be improved is to add the verbal questions that are asked by the teacher to a section of the book and create space for summaries of the text. One specific area where the text is strong is the use of iconic aids such as illustrations and visuals.

However, the limitations of such readability assessments must be recognized, most of the assessments only take into account word length and sentence complexity. None of the reader-based factors such as motivation and culture that also contribute to text difficulty are accounted for. 

Because I understand the motivation to read fiction texts over non-fiction, I greatly enjoy integrating both types of text into content area learning; accessing both allows students to build schema and vocabulary, and motivates them to engage with the content. The models provided in the Vacca text provide a framework for implementing instruction using literature with non-fiction. Applying these frameworks and providing students with the appropriate strategies and tools for the specific type of text increases the chances for success with this model.