文本適讀性分級架構之建立研究
作者:
陳茹玲(國立臺東大學師資培育中心)、蔡鑫廷(國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系)、宋曜廷(國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系)、李宜憲(國立臺灣師範大學心理與教育測驗研究發展中心)
卷期：60卷第1期
日期：2015年3月
頁碼：1-32
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.2015.60(1).01
摘要：
本研究首先整合閱讀理論與傳統文本分級研究，建立一「文本適讀性分級架構」，此架構包含印刷、語言與文學、體裁、內容及多樣性等五大構面，以及其下的十七類準則及五十八個適讀性指標。接著以層級分析法探討25位閱讀領域的研究與教學專家對架構中各構面、準則與適讀性指標之於文本適讀性重要性的認知。結果顯示：「內容」為影響文章理解最重要的構面，其次依序為「語言與文學」、「體裁」、「多樣性」與「印刷」構面。整體權重值最高的前五個適讀性指標為「真實性」、觀點「一致性」、「觀點數」、概念「深度」及「大眾文化」；最低為「文本尺寸」。本研究建立的「文本適讀性分級架構」，包含影響理解的各個重要構面，並可以客觀量化適讀性指標的重要性，提供更周延的文本分級。
關鍵詞：層級分析法、適讀性、適讀性分級架構、適讀性指標
《詳全文》
參考文獻：
- 宋曜廷、陳茹玲、李宜憲、查日龢、曾厚強、林維駿…張國恩（2013）。中文文本可讀性探討：指標選取、模型建立與效度驗證。中華心理學刊，55（1），75-106。doi:10.6129/CJP.20120621【Sung, Y.-T., Chen, J.-L., Lee, Y.-S., Cha, J.-H., Tseng, H.-C., Lin, W.-C., …Chang, K.-E. (2013). Investigating Chinese text readability: Linguistic features, modeling, and validation. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 75-106. doi:10.6129/CJP.20120621】
- 鄧振源、曾國雄（1989）。分析層級法的內涵特性與應用（上）。中國統計學報，27（6），5-27。【Deng, J.-Y., & Tzeng, G.-H. (1989). The analytic hierarchy process: Concepts, techniques and applications (I). Journal of the Chinese Statistical Association, 27(6), 5-27.】
- Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2006). Assisting low-performing readers with a group-based reading fluency intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 91-107.
- Brandão, A. C., & Oakhill, J. (2005). How do you know this answer? Children’s use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 18, 687-713. doi:10.1007/s11 145-005-5600-x
- Bruce, B. C., Rubin, A., & Starr, K. S. (1981). Why readability formulas fail. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-24(1), 50-52. doi:10.1109/TPC.1981.6447826
» 展開更多
- 宋曜廷、陳茹玲、李宜憲、查日龢、曾厚強、林維駿…張國恩（2013）。中文文本可讀性探討：指標選取、模型建立與效度驗證。中華心理學刊，55（1），75-106。doi:10.6129/CJP.20120621【Sung, Y.-T., Chen, J.-L., Lee, Y.-S., Cha, J.-H., Tseng, H.-C., Lin, W.-C., …Chang, K.-E. (2013). Investigating Chinese text readability: Linguistic features, modeling, and validation. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 75-106. doi:10.6129/CJP.20120621】
- 鄧振源、曾國雄（1989）。分析層級法的內涵特性與應用（上）。中國統計學報，27（6），5-27。【Deng, J.-Y., & Tzeng, G.-H. (1989). The analytic hierarchy process: Concepts, techniques and applications (I). Journal of the Chinese Statistical Association, 27(6), 5-27.】
- Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2006). Assisting low-performing readers with a group-based reading fluency intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 91-107.
- Brandão, A. C., & Oakhill, J. (2005). How do you know this answer? Children’s use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 18, 687-713. doi:10.1007/s11 145-005-5600-x
- Bruce, B. C., Rubin, A., & Starr, K. S. (1981). Why readability formulas fail. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-24(1), 50-52. doi:10.1109/TPC.1981.6447826
- Burns, P. C., & Roe, B. D. (1989). Burns/Roe informal reading inventory: Preprimer to twelfth grade (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
- Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Manual for the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
- Cook, L., & Mayer, R. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 448-456. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.448
- Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27(2), 37-54.
- Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450-466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80) 90312-6
- DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information.
- DuBay, W. H. (2007). Smart language: Readers, readability, and the grading of text. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information.
- Dymock, S. (2005). Teaching expository text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 177-181. doi:10.1598/RT.59.2.7
- Dymock, S. (2009). Teaching expository text structure aware-ness. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Essential readings on comprehension (pp. 62-69). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
- Dzaldov, B. S., & Peterson, S. (2005). Book leveling and readers. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 222-229. doi:10.1598/RT.59.3.2
- Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1999). Matching books to readers: Using leveled books in guided reading, K-3. Portmouth, NH: Heinemann.
- Fry, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21(3), 242-252.
- Fry, E. (2002). Readability versus leveling. The Reading Teacher, 56(3), 286-291.
- Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126-135. doi:10.1080/19388076709556976
- Gough, P. B. (1984). Word recognition. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 225-254). New York, NY: Longman.
- Graesser, A. C., & Bertus, E. L. (1998). The construction of causal inference while reading expository texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(3), 247-269. doi:10. 1207/s1532799xssr0203_4
- Graesser, A. C., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 171-205). White Plains, NY: Longman.
- Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193- 202. doi:10.3758/BF03195564
- Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
- Gunning, T. G. (2002). Creating literacy instruction for all children (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- Haenggi, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1992). Individual differences in reprocessing of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 182-192. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.2.182
- Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26(3), 211-234. doi:10.1080/02702710590962550
- Hsu, S.-H., & Huang, K.-C. (2000). Interword spacing in Chinese text layout. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91(2), 355-365. doi:10.2466/pms.2000.91.2.355
- Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577. doi:10.3758/BF03193491
- Kintsch, W. (1988). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363-394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363
- Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
- Klare, G. R. (1984). Readability. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. I. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 681-744). New York, NY: Longman.
- Klare, G. R. (2000). The measurement of readability: Useful information for communicators. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation (JCD), 24(3), 107-121. doi:10.1145/344599.344630
- LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
- Lacroix, N. (1999). Macrostructure construction and organization in the processing of multiple text passages. Instructional Science, 27(3-4), 221-233. doi:10.1007/BF00897320
- Lee, L.-S., Chang, L.-T., Lai, C.-C., & Lin, K.-Y. (2011). Using the analytical hierachy process to construct performance indicators for comprehensive high schools in Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(5), 615-626. doi:10.2224/sbp.2011.39.5.615
- Legge, G. E., Pelli, D. G., Rubin, G. S., & Schleske, M. M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading--I. Normal vision. Vision Research, 25(2), 239-252. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(85)90117-8
- Long, D. L., Oppy, B. J., & Seely, M. R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1456-1470. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.20.6.1456
- McCormick, W. M. (1988). Theories of reading in dialogue: An interdisciplinary study. New York, NY: University Press of America.
- McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., Lehman, S., & Poliquin, A. (2007). The effect of causal diagrams on text learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 367-388. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych. 2005.11.002
- McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440-466. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440
- McLaughlin, G. H. (1968). Proposals for British readability measures. In A. L. Brown & J. Downing (Eds.), The third international reading symposium (pp. 186-205). London, UK: Cassell.
- McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639-646.
- McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247-288. doi:10.1080/01638539609544975
- McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292-330. doi:10.1080/ 01638530902959943
- Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121-143. doi:10.3102/00028312021001121
- Murry, J. D., & McGlone, C. (1997). Topic overviews and the process of top structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 251-261. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.251
- Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8
- Peeck, J. (1974). Retention of pictorial and verbal content of a text with illustrations. Journal of Education Psychology, 66(6), 880-888. doi:10.1037/h0021531
- Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2004). Effective reading strategies: Teaching children who find reading difficult (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
- Rog, L. J., & Burton, W. (2001). Matching texts and readers: Leveling early reading materials for assessment and instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55(4), 348-356.
- Rumelhart, D. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 864-894). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
- Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International.
- Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Salmeron, J. L., & Herrero, I. (2005). An AHP-based methodology to rank critical success factors of executive information systems. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 28(1), 1-12. doi:10.1016/j. csi.2004.09.002
- Schieffle, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(2), 141-160. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90030-8
- Schriver, K. A. (2000). Readability formulas in the new millennium: What’s the use? ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 138-140. doi:10.1145/344599.344638
- Selzer, J. (1981). Readability is a four-letter word. Journal of Business Communication, 18(4), 23-34. doi:10.1177/002194368101800403
- Singer, H., & Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.). (1985). Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed.). Newark, DW: International Reading Association.
- Singer, M., & O’Connell, G. (2003). Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 607-631. doi:10.1080/095414400340000079
- Spache, G. D. (1978). Good reading for poor readers (Rev. 10th ed.). Champaign, IL: Garrard.
- Stromso, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2003). Students’ strategic use of multiple sources during expository text reading: A longitudinal think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 113-147. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_01
- Tullis, T. S. (1983). The formatting of alphanumeric displays: A review and analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 25(6), 657-682.
- Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
- van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. Taylor, P. van den Broek, & M. Graves (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
- Wasik, B. A. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 266-291. doi:10.1598/RRQ.33.3.2
- Weaver, B. M. (2000). Leveling books K-8: Matching readers to text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
- Yan, X., Song, D., & Li, X. (2006, Novermber). Concept-based document readability in domain specific information retrieval. Paper presented at the 15th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Arlington, VA. doi:10.1145/ 1183614.1183692
- Zakaluk, B. L., & Samuels, S. J. (1995). The Lexile framework for reading. Durham, NC: Metametrics.
Journal directory listing - Volume 60 (2015) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【60(1)】March
The Development of a Text Leveling Framework
Author:
Ju-Ling Chen(Center for Teacher Education, National Taitung University), Shin-Ting Tsai(Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University), Yao-Ting Sung(Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University), Yi-Shian Lee(Research Center for Psychological and Educational Testing, National Taiwan Normal University)
Vol.&No.：Vol. 60, No. 1
Date：March 2015
Pages：1-32
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.2015.60(1).01
Abstract：
In this study, reading theories and traditional text leveling systems were integrated and a text leveling framework comprising five aspects (i.e., print features, language and literary features, text structure, content, and diversity), 17 criteria, and 58 indicators was developed. Subsequently, 25 experts in the reading research and reading education fields were invited to assess the importance of these aspects, criteria, and indicators to text leveling. Data were analyzed using the analytic hierarchy process. The results show that content was the most critical aspect influencing text comprehensibility, followed by language and literary features, text structure, diversity, and print features. Overall, the five indicators in this framework with the highest global weight were truthfulness, consistency of perspective, number of perspectives, depth of concepts, and popular culture. Text length exhibited the lowest global weight. The text leveling framework established in this study includes all the major dimensions affecting comprehension and, through objectively quantifying the importance of leveling indicators, provides highly comprehensive text leveling.
Keywords：analytic hierarchy process, leveling, leveling framework, leveling indicator