Some Comments on Readability and Writing
Readable USP Extension Courses
Eileen Tuimalealiifano
Readability has been defined as "those aspects of a text which make it
easy (or hard) for a reader to understand, e.g. legibility, illustration,
colour, vocabulary, conceptual difficulty, syntax and organisation of
content" (Gilmore and Wagner, 1986: 5-6). For course writers, the 'text
characteristics'of most concern are the last four, which can be categorised
further into word and sentence variables. "Studies over the years have
suggested and still suggest that the two variables of word difficulty and
sentence difficulty account for most of the variance in reliability measure-
m e n t " (Klare, 1976: 143). Klare goes on to list some of these word and
sentence difficulty variables as follows:
Some Word Difficult Variables
1. Proportion of content (vs function) words
2. Content word qualities
a. Frequency
b. Familiarity
c. Length
3. Concreteness vs abstractness
4. Association-value
5. Active vs nominalized verb constructions
Some Sentence Difficulty Variables
1. Length (esp. clause length)
2. Active vs passive
3. Affirmative vs negative
4. Embedded vs non-embedded
5. Low depth vs high depth
Two more sentence variables can be added to this list:
6. The degree to which relationships are developed intra- and inter-
sententially.
7. The extent that 'gapping' (the intentional or accidental omission of
information) has occurred within the text (Chambers, 1983: 11).
39
Implications of some word and sentence variables for writing
This paper will focus briefly and in particular on word variables 2, 3 and
4, and sentence variables 1-4 and 7 as those that either appear to be
potentially problematic for USP course writers, or require to be brought
to the attention of those teaching through the print mode. In an
unpublished readability survey of some USP extension course materials
(Tuimalealiifano, 1985), content words or technical jargon were found to
be a major cause of reading difficulty for USP extension students. Much
of the jargon used in the courses under survey (and probably in most
other USP extension courses) was highly abstract in nature, in that it
represented new content-related concepts that students were expected to
be or become familiar with. USP course writers would agree with Nelson
(1978) that these words "represent the very substance of the subject the
teachers are trying to teach" (Nelson: 623-624). She goes on to caution,
however, that "subject area textbooks are not designed for independent
reading" and that "the best way to enhance reading comprehension in
your subject area is to provide the kind of instruction which prepares
students for the reading assignment, guides them in their reading and
reinforces the new ideas through rereading and discussion" (Nelson: 625,
my italics).
Because USP course writers are writing for second language learners in a
Pacific context, the choice of words for their association value (con-
notation/denotation) must take on a new significance. Words with a
western (or foreign) culture orientation, either in a course text or in
written materials must not be expected to work for USP students,
particularly those working independently, at a distance, divorced from a
face-to-face context where a further verbal explanation can be sought.
With regard to sentence variables, the long sentence has been found to
correlate highly with reading difficulty and a high degree of abstraction.
A high level of embedding can also inhibit the flow of meaning in a
sentence. Fry (1977) summarises this in his 'Kernel Distance Theory'
where the distance between the noun and the verb (the kernel of the
sentence) makes the sentence more difficult than does the distance
outside of the kernel. Keeping the kernel together as much as possible,
therefore, and not allowing too much embedding between subject and
verb will not only reduce the sentence length but allow a clearer flow of
meaning.
40
Because the successful distance education course has been associated in
part with a personalised writing style achieved through keeping the roles
of teacher and student, and the activity associated with each, clearly
defined, it is easy to see how the active rather than the passive voice
makes for clarity of message. This, plus presentation in a predominantly
affirmative or positive style lends much to readable writing.
The significance of the reader
Apart from text characteristics, a discussion of readability factors must
include 'reader characteristics or attributes' that determine how well (or
not) a text is received by the reader.
These essentially involve the interest and motivational level of the reader
and his/her language competence and background. Klare suggests that
"motivation can sometimes override the effect of readability upon
comprehension" where it has a chance to operate (p. 140) and that
difficult subject matter will not pose a problem if it is something students
are interested in and/or have sufficient background knowledge of
(p. 146). The degree to which writers can use the technique of 'gapping'
(see sentence variable no. 7) successfully depends on how well equipped
the students are with appropriate background knowledge. Writing that
runs over too much 'old ground' is not only a waste of time for the author
but may result in boredom on the part of the reader and consequently a
drop in the readability rating of the text. However, writers are cautioned
that this background knowledge must be known, not assumed, before it
can be used to advantage.
With regard to the interest that USP students bring to their study, it must
be kept in mind that because of limited job opportunities in this part of
the world, many students are in jobs (or in training for jobs) that are
available and are not necessarily of their choice or interest. It is likely
therefore, that although highly motivated to pass a course, the student
may not be as interested in the subject area as would be expected. This
consideration must be reflected in the course writer's writing and extra
effort must be put into making the subject interesting.
Concluding comments
Having singled out the factors inherent in both text and reader that make
41
for readability, the question is how to use the information to produce
readable writing. G u n n i n g (1968) recommends the "reader-centred'
approach.
First, say to yourself, 'To whom am I writing and what would 1 say?' No one
could pretend that he could write well if he didn't know to whom he was
writing and what he wanted to s a y . . . Second, notice the number of lines you
write. . . It is not the consciously written long sentence that causes trouble, it
is the unconsciously written long one. . . Third, question every word you are
tempted to u s e . . . There is room for the necessarily long word if you get rid
of those that are unnecessary (Gunning, pp. 42-43).
Only when a writer develops "a greater awareness of the readability of the
written materials used in adult e d u c a t i o n " and makes "a concentrated
effort to match the readability of the materials with the reader's skill",
can there be "increasing acceptance of reading as a primary or auxiliary
method of instruction" (Abram, 1981: 31). Reading has already been
accepted as a prime medium of instruction for many t h o u s a n d s of U S P
extension students. A great effort must now be put into becoming aware
of how well we are using this medium for teaching and whether we are
producing readable course materials.
Readability is therefore the end product of a conscious effort to keep
reader and reading material on the same wavelength. More than just that,
it is "excitement, familiarity (unfamiliar ideas explained in familiar
terms) clarity (low percentage of abstract words), visibility, a good
b o o k ! " (Blair, 1971:443).
References
Abram, M.J. (1981) 'Readability: Its Use in Adult Education.' Lifelong Learning:
The Adult Years. January, 8-9, 30-31.
Blair, A.M. (1971) 'Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Readability
but were Afraid to Ask.' Elementary English 48(5), 442-443.
Chambers, F. (1983) 'Readability Formulae and Structure ofText.' Educational
Review 35(1), 3-13.
Fry. E. (1977) 'Fry's Readability Graph: Clarifications, Validity, and Extension
to Level 17'.' Journal of Reading, December, 242-252.
Gilmore, A. and Wagner, G. (1985) The Readability of Trade Examinations.
Wellington: NZCER.
Gunning, R. (1968) The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Klare, G.R. (1976) 'A Second Look at the Validity of Readability Formulas.'
42
Journal of Reading Behavior 8(2), Summer, 129-152.
Nelson, J. (1978) 'Some Cautions for the Content Area Teacher.' Journal of
Reading, April, 620-625.
Tuimalealiifano, E.J. (1985) A Readability Survey of USP Extension Course
Materials. Extension Services, USP. (Unpublished report.)
43
|
