TheBes
tWayT
oWr
i
t
e
Readabl
eSci
enceEducat
i
onT
ext
books
J
os
e
phMwami
s
i
,PHD
S
ammyMut
hwi
i
,PHD
Table Of Contents
INTRODUCTION............ ........................................................................4
OBJECTIVES...... ....................................................................................4
CHAPTER 1....... ....................................................................................5
TEXT READABILITY, READING AND WRITING........ .....................................5
THE MEANING OF READABILITY....................................................5
COMMUNICATION: THE READING/WRITING RELATIONSHIP........5
THEORY OF THE READING PROCESS........ .....................................6
THEORY OF THE WRITING PROCESS........ ....................................10
CHAPTER 2....... ..................................................................................15
HOW TO USE MAJOR VARIABLES CONTRIBUTING TO READABILITY........15
LEXIS.... ......................................................................................15
SYNTAX ......................................................................................16
TEXT ORGANIZATION/ COHERENCE...........................................20
CHAPTER 3....... ..................................................................................23
HEADINGS...............................................................................................23
COHESION...............................................................................................24
PUNCTUATION ......................................................................................28
INTERACTION BETWEEN TEXT AND ARTWORK.... ..................................28
READER INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................29
CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON TEXT READABILITY............ .....................30
ANNEX ..............................................................................................31
EVALUATING READABILITY.......... ............................................................31
PERFORMANCE TESTING.....................................................................31
POINTS TO REMEMBER ......................................................................36
GLOSSARY OF TERMS... ......................................................................37
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................39
1.
INTRODUCTION
What do you understand by a Readable Science Educa�on Textbook?
A readable science educa�on textbook is one that is wri�en using language that is speciﬁc, to the point and
simple to understand, making it easy to read. A readable science educa�on textbook must contain essen�al
informa�on informa�on on a subject area which is presented clearly at the user’s level of competence. This
book carries informa�on which shows how to carry out certain procedures for speciﬁc target groups involved
in diﬀerent scien�ﬁc ﬁelds.
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this science textbook the reader should be able to:
•
•
•
•
•
Explain the meaning of readability
Describe the reading and wri�ng processes
Understand the role of communica�on in wri�ng readable textbooks
Use the major language variables that aﬀect the readability of science educa�on textbooks
Write a readable science text that is easy to read.
CHAPTER ONE
5.
TEXT READABILITY, READING AND WRITING
1. THE MEANING OF READABILITY
Readability can be deﬁned as the ability to understand the meaning of a text
quickly and easily. This means the reader can eﬀec�vely remember important
facts about the text later. Another way of explaining a text’s readability is by its
comprehensibility.
It’s clear that readability refers to how well a reader understands a message
or text. He has to read with enough skill in order to make the right inferences
from the writer’s message. He has also to remain objec�ve enough to recognize diﬀerences in view point between himself and the writer. To do this he
must assess all the evidence that is, choice of words, selec�on of facts, organiza�on of materials and so on in order to convey the intended message. If he is
able to accomplish all this he is considered to have achieved comprehension,
which is the process by which a person understands the meaning of wri�en or
spoken language.
In summary, the readability of a health learning material determines how easily the language makes the material accessible to the reader.
2. COMMUNICATION: THE READING/WRITING RELATIONSHIP
There is a close rela�onship between reading and wri�ng. Clearly reading involves a reader, a text and the writer. This rela�onship can compared with that
between radio transmission and recep�on. The transmi�er at the radio sta�on
encodes sounds into signals while the radio set decodes signals into sound.
The same is true of wri�ng and reading a book. The book starts its life as a
series of thoughts in the writer’s brain and the writer’s inten�on is to convey
those thoughts into the reader’s brain. The writer does this in such a way that
the reader’s understanding of/ empathy with/interest in the subject ma�er is
ideally, of the same quality as that expressed by the writer (Williams 1985).
Nu�al (1982) explains this rela�onship further by giving a simple model of the
process of communica�on.
6.
CHAPTER ONE
Encoding
SENDER
MESSAGE
wri�en
TEXT
spoken
Decoding
?
decoder
reader
listener
encoder
writer
speaker
Figure 1:
RECEIVING
A model of the communica�on process
In this diagram (Fig. 1), the writer encodes his message, which he wants somebody else to receive. The encoded message is then available to the reader, who
decodes it. Once this is done the message enters the mind of the reader and
communica�on is achieved.
This process clearly shows that wri�ng and reading are inseparable. It is an
indica�on that wri�ng is a task of represen�ng meaning while reading is a task
of deriving meaning from what is wri�en. This statement points out that writing involves the encoding of a message of some kind, that is, we translate our
thoughts into language while reading involves the decoding or interpreta�on
of this message.
There are, of course, factors that aﬀect the wri�ng- reading process. These may
include lack of interest and mo�va�on as well as knowledge of the content.
Poor language proﬁciency will also adversely aﬀect the reading process. These
diﬃcul�es can be overcome, for example by well-wri�en, well organized ideas,
use of familiar and short sentences, and an awareness of the audience. It is
important to remember that a writer who has his reader in mind is more likely
to succeed in ge�ng his text understood.
3. THEORY OF THE READING PROCESS
Goodman (1988) states that reading is a psycholinguis�c process. It starts with
a linguis�c surface representa�on encoded by a writer and ends with meaning, which the reader reconstructs. This means there is an interac�on between
language and thought in reading. The writer encodes thought as language and
the reader decodes language to thought (message).
CHAPTER ONE
7.
Reading, contrary to earlier belief, is not a passive or recep�ve language skill.
Nu�al (1982), for example, stresses that “…… meaning is not merely lying in the
text wai�ng to be passively absorbed. The reader is, however, ac�vely involved
and will very o�en have to work to get to the meaning.” He takes to the text
knowledge of the content, his interest and mo�va�on. This makes him engage
(constantly) in an ac�ve interac�on with the text in order to derive meaning”
(Goodman 1976, Nu�al 1982, Carrel 1988).
Contrary to the belief that the eyes read, the human brain is actually the main
organ in the reading process. Of course, the eyes have an important part to
play in reading. You cannot read with your eyes closed (except for Braille) or
in the dark, or if you have no printed materials in front of your eyes. The eyes
“ﬁxate” symbols and words as they traverse the line of print. These images are
then passed via the op�c nerve to the brain, which processes them into meaning. Smith’s views are supported by Williams (1985) who states that , “… the
eyes are a pair of twin precision cameras, taking a succession of overlapping
‘photographs’ along the line of print, and sending those ‘photographs’ via the
op�c nerve to the brain for processing into message”.
Several models have been used to describe the reading process. One such
model, used by Williams (1985), is depicted in ﬁgure 2.
8.
CHAPTER ONE
the writer encodes
the message
into words
thought
Z
thought
Z
the reader decodes
the words
into message
In prac�se, of course, this is very diﬃcult to achieve because (as with radio transmission) there are various obstacles. Firstly, there may be obstacles in the wri�en text itself.
? thought
Z?
thought
Z
? coherence
? paragraph structure
? sentence complexity
? cohesion
? sentence length
? vocabulary choice
? artwork quality
? panctua�on
WRITER
Furthermore there may be obstacles to the readers ability to reconstruct the writers
message.
? insuﬃcient prior knowledge of
the subject ﬁeld
? cross-cultural ambiguity
? readers competence in English
? poor mo�va�on
thought
Z
? insuﬃcient prior “knowledge of
the world” that interlocks with the
subject ma�er.
? insuﬃcient intelligence
? inadequate reading strategies
? poor health
READER
Figure 2:
Reading process model
CHAPTER ONE
9.
The eyes move across the line of print in a series of jerks and pauses. Smith
(1971) and (1978) qualiﬁes this by explaining that eyes move in leaps and
bounds known as ‘saccades’ (= jerks). The pauses, when the eyes are sta�onery
are known as “ﬁxa�ons” during which the ‘pictures’ are taken. What happens
during a ﬁxa�on is of par�cular importance in studying the process of reading. Williams (1985) and Crystal (1988) explain that normally, readers make
three or four ﬁxa�ons per line and most people can ‘photograph’ a minimum
of two inches of average print per ﬁxa�on. The brain is capable of processing
certain amounts of informa�on. Any unprocessed informa�on is kept in the
‘short term memory’ a�er which it is lost. This implies that in order to write in
a readable manner, the author must understand the process of reading.
Authors need to be aware of certain elements of the brain’s composite processing strategy if they are to capitalize on the interac�ve nature of the reading
process and so enhance the readability of their wri�ng.
The Interac�ve Nature of Reading
Knowledge of the psycholinguis�c and oculo-motor nature of the reading process will help the author to understand that reading is not automa�c and that
the reader should not be taken for granted. An understanding of the interac�ve
nature of reading and the problems involved will make the author more aware
of the fact that in order to communicate eﬀec�vely with the reader he should
be very careful in making the reader’s task as easy as possible. It is important,
for example, not to overload the reader’s brain with informa�on which will be
diﬃcult for it to process, and which it cannot keep in short –term memory as
the eyes con�nue to send to it more informa�on. This avoids what Goodman
(1976) calls a ‘short circuit’ which occurs when a reader is incapable of ge�ng
the meaning from a text.
The Role of First and Second Languages in Reading
The process of reading is a complex one. It involves cogni�on, life and language. The process of reading is the same in both the ﬁrst and the second
language but reading in the second language (L2) has more problems than in
the ﬁrst language (L1). First language is referred to as the mother tongue, while
the second language is the addi�onal language a person acquires and uses for
10.
CHAPTER ONE
reading.
Second language (L2) readers usually read more slowly and with less understanding than First Language (L1) readers. There are two opposing views concerning this. These are that reading in the second language (L2)
is diﬃcult because of the readers inadequate knowledge of the target language,
and /or because of interference from the ﬁrst language (L1) and the reader’s
inability to read it. Alderson (1984) explores the literature surrounding these
views and concludes by sta�ng that reading “… appears to be both a language
problem and a reading problem…”
These views, concerning transference of mother tongue reading strategies,
and the importance of a “pla�orm” linguis�c competence in the target language are important ma�ers which authors need to bear in mind when creating readable text.
4. THEORY OF THE WRITING PROCESS
When we write we use “graphic symbols”. These are le�ers or combina�ons
of le�ers, which relate to the sounds we make when we speak. Byrne (1988)
refers to wri�ng as the act of forming graphic symbols: making marks of some
kind on a ﬂat surface.
However, wri�ng is clearly much more than the produc�on of graphic symbols.
The symbols have to be arranged according to certain conven�ons to form
words, and words have to be arranged to form sentences.
We are aware that, in wri�ng, we produce a “sequence of sentences arranged
in a par�cular order and linked together in certain ways.’ The sequence may
be very short – only two or three sentences – but, because of the way the
sentences have been put in order and linked together, they form a coherent
whole. They form what commonly called a “text”.
Zamel (1982) refers to wri�ng as a process through which meaning is created.
This means writers do not seem to know beforehand what it is they will say.
This suggests composi�on of instruc�on that recognizes the importance of
genera�ng, formula�ng and reﬁning one’s ideas.
CHAPTER ONE
11.
Wri�ng Style
The actual style in which a book is wri�en is important. While some people are
naturally good authors, the majority are not. However, a good style of wri�ng
can be acquired if care and a�en�on are taken. A book, when complete, should
not only convey informa�on but should also be pleasing to read. Boredom on
the part of the reader is a condemna�on of the author.
While the wri�ng of good English is diﬃcult for those whose mother tongue
English, it is more diﬃcult for whom English is a foreign language. However,
the task is made easier for all authors if they bear in mind certain simple principles.
As men�oned earlier , the main object of wri�ng is to transfer informa�on
from one person to another. Muir (1983) suggests this can best be done by
taking inot account what Somerset Maugham, himself a physician, wrote while
reviewing his own life:
On taking thought it seemed to me that, I must aim at lucidity, simplicity and
euphony. I have put these three in the (order) of importance I assign to them.
The key to good wri�ng could not be be�er summarized. If your wri�ng is not
lucid you will convey nothing. The passage of informa�on from one person to
another is improved by complexity; indeed the opposite is true, complexity
may itself distort the informa�on.
Discovering Meaning in Wri�ng
Studies have been carried out in this area and valuable ﬁndings have emerged
that support Zamel’s views. For example, Emig’s study, quoted by Zamel (1982),
reveals that wri�ng involves a con�nuing a�empt to discover what it is one
wants to say. It is this act of discovery that Murray (1978, 1980) has iden�ﬁed
as the main feature of the wri�ng process. While this entails several stages,
such as rehearsing together and repeatedly in order to discover meaning.
Wri�ng viewed from this perspec�ve is the process of exploring one’s thoughts
and learning from the act of wri�ng itself what these thoughts are. Rather than
being the development of some preconceived and well-formed idea, wri�ng is
the record of an idea developing. It is the process whereby an ini�al idea gets
extended and reﬁned.
12.
CHAPTER ONE
Very li�le is known about individual methods of composing a text. Most people would agree that it is usually neither an easy or spontaneous ac�vity. It
requires some conscious mental eﬀorts. As Byrne (1988) says:
“We ‘think out’ our sentences and consider various ways of combining and arranging them.
We reread what we have wri�en as a s�mulus for further wri�ng”.
Whatever methods are used for wri�ng it is clear that wri�ng involves the encoding of a message of some kind. In other words, we translate our thoughts
into language. This gives us a clear dis�nc�on between wri�ng and reading,
which means decoding or interpreta�on.
The Needs of the Reader
To achieve a coherent whole one may need to make notes, dra� and revise and
even write several versions of a text before being sa�sﬁed with the result. The
reason for this is that we are wri�ng for a reader. The reader is someone who
is not physically present. Because the reader is not present, and in some cases
may not even be known, it becomes necessary to ensure that the reader understands what is wri�en without any further help. In other words, the writer
must keep in mind the reader (like keeping a photograph of the reader in front
of you to remind you who he is as you write). As one student indicated,
“When I write, I keep in mind the reader. The professor is not the reader because he has heard it a million �mes before… my reader is an imaginary person
who may not know anything about the subject on which I write. You have to
think that you are informing some body even though this person never sees
the material.”(Zamel 1982)
All these views point to the care a writer has to take with wri�ng. The organiza�on of sentences into a text, into a coherent whole which is as explicit as possible and complete in itself make it possible to communicate successfully with
the reader through the medium of wri�ng.
Wri�ng versus Oral Communica�on
Wri�ng is, essen�ally, a solitary ac�vity and the fact that we are required to
CHAPTER ONE
13.
write on our own, without the possibility of interac�on or the beneﬁt of feedback, in itself makes wri�ng diﬃcult.
Oral communica�on is sustained through a process of interac�on, and par�cipants usually keep it going. There is li�le �me to pay a�en�on either to organizing our sentences, which is more naturally maintained through the process
of interac�on (Byrne 1988). We repeat backtrack, expand and so on depending
on how people react to what we say. Incomplete and even ungramma�cal utterances may pass unno�ced.
Wri�ng is not like oral communica�on. It involves compensa�ng for the absence of these features in oral communica�on. We have to keep the channel
of communica�on open through our own eﬀorts. We also have to ensure, both
through our choice of sentence structure and by the way our sentences are
linked together and sequenced, that the text produced can be interpreted on
its own.
Wri�ng Instruc�on
Lastly, wri�ng is learned (by most people) through a process of instruc�on. We
have to master the wri�en form of the language and to learn certain structures
and text pa�erning which are important for eﬀec�ve communica�on in writing. We also have to learn how to organize our ideas in such a way that they
can be understood by a reader who is not present.
What all of this means is that the writer must write carefully in order to convey exactly what he intends. If well-sequenced, a text will save the reader the
trouble of sor�ng out the order of ideas before he can begin to understand the
meaning.
This textbook will provide instruc�on in wri�ng high quality and science educa�on textbooks using the above knowledge as a founda�on. This can be
achieved when a variety of variables in language usage combine together to
determine the books’ readability. Hence, readability of wri�ng should be as
a result of presen�ng clear, concise and simple English. It is also important to
keep in mind the needs of the diﬀerent cadres of science educa�on staﬀ for
which these textbooks are intended.
14.
CHAPTER ONE
Chapter Exercises
• What are some general factors that can aﬀect a science educa�on’s
readability?
• What is the rela�onship between reading and wri�ng?
• What are the strategies involved in reading?
• How the does the writer convey his message to the reader and what
are the stages involed.
CHAPTER THREE
13.
HEADINGS
A solid block of wri�ng on every page is diﬃcult and boring to read. It is also
diﬃcult to use the page for reference. Writers should use headings to:
• Break up the text so that it is easier to read.
• Show what the next few paragraphs are about.
• Help the reader to ﬁnd the place again a�er he has been
looking at a diagram.
• Help to give the page a pa�ern.
Good headings are meaningful. However, care must be taken to avoid headings that are too short. Compare headings (a) and (b).
a. Unit VI: Housing.
Site.
Design and Architecture.
Ven�la�on.
Ligh�ng.
b. Chapter IV: Preven�on of diarrhoea
4.1. - Is it possible to prevent diarrhoea?
4.2. - How safe is bo�le feeding?
4.3. - How can you help to make water safe for the community?
4.4. - Why should you encourage the use of pit latrines?
Headings and Subheading(s) of (a) do not tell the reader much. The furthest
he can go is to infer that the text is about construc�ng a house. However,
in (b) both the heading and the sub-headings are predic�ve. Be�er s�ll, the
writer uses rhetorical ques�ons that ac�vates the reader’s mind to think of
possible answers even before the text is read.
Reinforce the Contents of a Heading
This makes it easier for the reader to rebuild the message in the text according to what the heading has predicted.
24.
CHAPTER THREE
An example of heading reinforcement is shown below.
Germina�on of Diﬀerent Seeds
The nature of germina�on varies in diﬀerent seeds. During germina�on the
cotyledons may be brought above the surface.
E. COHESION
Cohesion in a text is the rela�onship that exists within and between sentences. This rela�onship makes a text an integrated unit rather than simply a list
of independent sentences.
There are ﬁve categories of cohesion, viz.
COHESION
Subs�tu�on
Ellipsis
Reference
Conjunc�on
Lexical Reitera�on
Use Subs�tu�on
This simply means taking the place of or being used in the place.
The following text shows how subs�tu�on can be used:
The human skin is made of two layers, the outer one and the inner
one.
The outer layer is called the epidermis while the inner one is called the
dermis.
On three occasions, the writer has subs�tuted one for layer.
Subs�tu�on can some�mes cause a problem if the distance between the
CHAPTER THREE
25.
original noun or verb and its subs�tute is long, as in this example:
Kenya known exports more sugar to Britain as a result of decreasing home
demand and an expansion in her trading links with the rest of the United
Kingdom than she did in the past.
This text can be rewri�en to reduce the distance between the subs�tute and
the verb, and hence make more readable, e.g.:
Kenya now exports more sugar to Britain than she did in the past, as a result
of decreasing home demand and an expansion of her trading links with the
rest of the United Kingdom.
Ellipsis
When a verb or noun has been men�oned earlier, its repe��on may be unnecessary. This is referred to as “subs�tu�on by zero”. For example:
(Verbal) Addi�on of water to acid will not cause an accident but addi�on of
acid to water will.
(cause an accident is ellipted a�er will)
(Nominal) Although Salmonella typhi bacteria and Staphylococcus aureus
bacteria
are both responsible for food poisoning, the Vibrio Cholera is mainly responsible for diarrhea.
(bacteria is ellipted a�er Vibrio Cholera)
Ellipsis is not common in instruc�onal texts and so should not cause problems
in readability. However, it may cause problems for L2 beginners and in such
cases it is advisable to re - instate the previously ellipted item.
Use Textual Reference
If writers are not careful in their use of reference items they can cause confusion to readers.
Anaphoric reference occurs when certain words in a text point backwards to
preceding (more explicit) words or phrases.
26.
CHAPTER THREE
Cataphoric reference, on the other hand, occurs when words point forward to
words, phrases or even sentences.
The two types of textual references may be seen in the following text:
In 1978 work began on the construc�on of a large dam across the Tana River.
When complete the Masinga dam (named a�er the village near which it is
sited) will irrigate 2 million hectares of land and produce 3,000 mW of electric power. But since then and par�cularly since its independence, Kenya has
become increasingly worried about the cost of comple�ng and opera�ng the
project.
The instance it and then are anaphoric and cohere respec�vely with the
previously – men�oned, more explicit Masinga dam and 1978. Conversely,
its is cataphoric and links with the about – to – be - men�oned, more explicit
Kenya.
Anaphoric reference in text is frequent; cataphoric reference is much rarer.
Writers should bear the following points in mind to make their texts more
readable:
1.
It should be clear to the reader which preceding, more explicit co
– referent is being linked by anaphoric reference. That is, there should be no
ambiguity as to the preceding co – referent.
2.
Remember that the preceding, more explicit co - referent is stored
by the reader in short – term memory and is recalled for linkage when the
brain receives the “photograph” of the anaphoric item. Therefore, the greater
the distance between the anaphoric item and co – referent, the greater the
likelihood that the ﬁrst element of the �e will have faded from short – term
memory, thus reducing the chance of linkage.
3.
The only situa�on in which cataphoric reference is likely to pose a
readability problem is where there is considerable separa�on between the
cataphoric item and its co – referent. Reduc�on of the separa�on solves the
problem.
Exercise (E)
Diﬀeren�ate the terms anaphoric and cataphoric and give examples.
CHAPTER THREE
27.
Use Conjunc�on
This term is referred to as a discourse marker in linguis�cs and its func�on is
to indicate to the reader the general rela�onship between what they have
just read and what they are about to read. This means discourse markers
(also known as signpost words) help the reader’s brain to “predict” informa�on to come, in advance of the eyes “photographing” it. These markers help
direct the reader smoothly through the text.
Conjunc�ve cohesion is achieved by a group of words such as: because, so,
however, moreover, on the contrary, therefore, etc.
Discourse markers are very important in text as they operate as map reference.
They give the reader advance no�ce of:
•
going straight on (addi�ve), e.g. furthermore.
•
Changing direc�on (adversata�ve), e.g. however
•
The consequence of the part of the journey just completed (causal),
e.g. hence
•
The �me sequence and ra�o of part of the content of the text (temporal), e.g. in short.
The following text illustrates the “signpost” func�on of discourse makers:
It is generally agreed that the world’s capability to provide resources must be
ﬁnite. Furthermore, there is li�le argument but that the world as a whole is
over-populated. Hence ac�on is urgently needed. As to the precise nature of
that ac�on, however, and how it is to be arrived at, there is great disagreement. In short, it is a problem which at present has no obvious solu�on.
Exercise (F)
Write a paragraph in your ﬁeld of specializa�on using as many as ﬁve discourse markers.
Exercise (G)
Iden�fy several texts in science educa�on textbooks and iden�fy all the discourse markers.
28.
CHAPTER THREE
Use Lexical Reitera�on
This is an element of cohesion which has an impact on readability. An instance of reitera�on may be (a) the same word (repe��on), (b) a synonym or
near – synonym, or (c) a general word.
Generally, readers will not have problems with repe��on or synonym provided all the words in the synonym chain are known to the reader. However,
readers ﬁnd general nouns the largest readability problem.
The reasons are that:
• The reader may not iden�fy the cohesive rela�onship;
• The general noun almost always relates back to a phrase or clause.
In order to make texts more readable to the L2 or the younger L1
reader, writers should replace general nouns with repe��on or
synonym.
Exercise (H)
First Aid is an important component in health educa�on. In groups of two
write down some important aspects of First Aid known to you and underline
all synonums or repe��ons.
F PUNCTUATION
When we are speaking we help to indicate the rela�onship between one idea
and another by pauses, changes of tone, gestures and facial expressions. In
wri�ng we have no such aids to expression. Their place is taken by the various
signs and symbols which we know as punctua�on marks. For example, the
marks. , : ; ? ! in wri�ng.
The correct use of these symbols is of great importance to eﬀec�ve wri�ng.
G INTERACTION BETWEEN TEXT AND ARTWORK
People o�en think of readability as concerning prose only but a lot of informa�on in educa�onal textbooks is presented through artwork. There is a very
CHAPTER THREE
29.
wide range of pupils’ reading ability in both the second language (L2) situa�on and for some ﬁrst language (L1) readers. This means the informa�on
should be presented in such a way that all readers are able to extract meaning. A frui�ul way of doing so is to put much more informa�on into artwork.
It is worthwhile no�ng that in many instances there is very li�le integra�on
between text and artwork, and artwork is insuﬃciently communica�ve. Three
readability aspects of artwork are proposed and considered here.
1. It is suggested that weaker readers can be helped by including more
annota�on to the artwork. This gives the weaker readers a “point of entry” which may encourage them to go to the text for fuller account.
2. The weaker reader will also have more chance of extrac�ng meaning
if annota�on is presented in full gramma�cal sentences. While the conven�on of note form annota�on poses no problem for the competent L1
reader, it is o�en not adequate for the weaker reader, par�cularly in an L2
situa�on.
3. When cap�ons are used they should also add something to the
artwork, that is , they should:
• Perhaps incorporate a rhetorical ques�on,
• Be wri�en in full gramma�cal English
• Be in simpler English than the accompanying text
H READER INVOLVEMENT
Goodman (1976) has argued strongly that since reading is an interac�ve process, reading should be posi�vely encouraged by the writer to be as ac�ve as
possible while reading.
Let us suppose a reader intends to read about the AIDS virus. This reader
already has in his brain a complex outline of a theory or plan (schema) on
this micro – organism, his current knowledge, experience, a�tudes, believes
and/or expecta�ons, etc. His purpose in reading the text is to test and perhaps develop that schema in some way, and he does so by a�emp�ng to
interlock his own schema with that presented by the writer. This is where the
reader a�empts to reconstruct the message code into play. The reader will
30.
CHAPTER THREE
then use that part of the message which he understands and accepts in order
to develop his own cogni�ve schema on the topic concerned.
The “message reconstruc�on” task is in itself a complex ac�ve process. The
reader is involved in a very interac�ve process, in which he is con�nually engaged in a cogni�ve dialogue with the absent writer. As the text unfolds, the
reader is constantly hypothesizing, tes�ng, conﬁrming, suspending belief, and
so on.
In view of these points, writers should make their texts more readable by
doing every thing possible to make sure that interac�on is easy, accurate
and dynamic. They should facilitate the reader’s ambiguity, and ac�vate the
reader’s “schema”.
I
CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON TEXT READABILITY
In this science textbook the authors have necessarily treated the major facets
of readability separately. It should be stressed; however, that one element in
isola�on will probably not cause a major impediment to readability. Instead
it is the cumula�ve nature of readability problems that make a text diﬃcult
to read. Some of these examples are: unfamiliar abstract words with a long
syntac�cally complex sentence, within a poorly structured paragraph, or
prefaced by a non- predic�ve heading. Wri�ng the whole text in a “readerfriendly” style has been emphasized in the textbook. These are some of the
issues and problems which the sensi�ve author must be aware of.
CHAPTER TWO
15.
HOW TO USE MAJOR VARIABLES CONTRIBUTING TO READABILITY
There are some speciﬁc language variables which can determine the extend
to which the content in science educa�on books is readable. These include
lexis, syntax, text organiza�on/coherence and cohesion, punctua�on, headings, interac�on between text and artwork and reader involvement (Nu�al
(1982).
The variables are presented diagramma�cally in ﬁgure 3
Alexis
Syntax
Reader involvement
Text/artwork
interac�on
Panctua�on
Informa�ve predic�ve
headings
factors aﬀec�ng
text readability
Text organiza�on
Coherence
Textual Cohesion
Figure 3:
Variables contribu�ng to readability
In the remainder of this sec�on of this sec�on, a few of these factors are
explored in turn:
A LEXIS
A text can be made easy or diﬃcult by the choice of words used.
Use Frequent and Familiar Words
Words that are familiar or frequently used are easier to read and understand
and will contribute to more readable wri�ng. For example:
•
Go is more readable than Proceed
•
Drinks is more readable than Beverages
•
Give is more readable than Assign
16.
CHAPTER TWO
Use Concrete Words
The word concrete means “real” and concrete words are words which convey
meaning which can be applied prac�cally. Hence, use of concrete words gives
a vivid image in the reader’s mind. This improves reten�on and the impact
produced by such words is far greater impact than a parallel string of abstract
words.
Poor is more concrete than disadvantaged
Get is more concrete than derive
See is more concrete than detect
Use Ac�ve Verbs
A verb is a word showing the performance or an occurrence of an ac�on.
Using ac�ve verbs is especially important in wri�ng readable science educa�on textbooks because they are shorter and more familiar than passive forms
of verbs. This makes it possible for the reader to form a strong mental image
and thus receive a direct message. For example,
“Clean cooking vessels carefully with hot water and soap.”
The above sentence is more readable than the following one:
“Cooking vessels should be cleaned carefully with hot water and
soap”
Use Short Words
Examples:
Tie rather than Ligate
Press with your Finger rather than
Apply Digital Pressure
Meet rather than Encounter
Limit the Use of Idioms
An idiom is deﬁned as an “expression which func�ons as a single unit whose
meaning cannot be worked out from its separate parts” (Richards et al 1985).
If a text is for ﬁrst – language use then idioms may make more interes�ng and
“punchy” to read. But readers from other cultures may ﬁnd idioms diﬃcult to
understand. For example:
1.
“They buried themselves in books” means they were totally engrossed in their reading.
CHAPTER TWO
17.
2.
“He washed his hands oﬀ the ma�er” means he refused to have anything more to do with the ma�er.
Use Terminology Sparingly
Terminology consists of terms which are essen�al and characteris�c of any
specialist ﬁeld. It is welcome as it promotes succinct, economical wri�ng. But
over – use and abuse of terminology, however, results in jargon, which only
serves to obscure meaning.
Break Up Nouns Compounds
These are a group of nouns used as adjec�ves to another noun. It is important to use noun compounds in medical texts because they produce wri�ng
that is short and to the point. However, they may cause a variety of diﬃcul�es
for the reader. Below is an example of compound nouns:
1.
Corrosion – resistant materials.
2.
Scanning electron – microscope.
3.
Bacterial food – poisoning agent.
The writer should be well acquainted with noun compounds before using
them to avoid misunderstanding. In addi�on, simpler words can be used by
breaking the noun compound, e. g:.
1.
2.
3.
Materials that resist corrosion.
Microscope which scans electrons
Bacterial agent which causes food-poising
B SYNTAX
The Longman Dic�onary of applied Linguis�cs deﬁnes syntax as “the study of
how words combine to form sentences and the rules which govern the forma�on of sentences”.
Avoid Very Long Sentences
Short sentences are more readable. This is because a short sentence requires
the reader to retain fewer ‘photographs’ in short term memory. Writers
should use sentences containing 20 words or less.
18.
CHAPTER TWO
Short sentences avoid unnecessary strain on the capability of the reader to
process informa�on. Below is an example of an overly long sentence:
“If you draw 1cc of blood – about enough to ﬁll an eyedropper - from a
person who is infected with the tenacious and widespread virus that causes
hepa��s B, put it into a swimming pool containing 24,000 gallons of water,
extract a cubic cen�meter of water from the pool and inject it to a chimpanzee, there will be enough virus in the shot to infect the chimp.” Kenya Health
Learning Materials (KHLMs), {BAV}*
*BAV = Bacteriophages and Aids Virus
This is a very diﬃcult sentence for the reader to understand. The writer can
assist the reader by rewri�ng it as a series of shorter sentences. The rewri�en
text is thus more ‘reader friendly’. But writers should be careful not to use
overly short sentences which break up the cohesion of the text. This leads to
the reader reading discrete items of informa�on and hence having diﬃculty
in perceiving how those items interrelate in meaning.
Sec�on Exercises
Exercise (A)
Rewrite the above run –on sentence making it a series of shorter ones. Be
careful no to lose the meaning. Give your sentences to a colleague and ask
him to compare them with the overly long sentence. Which one is more readable and why?
Exercise (B)
Examine several science educa�on textbooks in the library or resource centre
and iden�fy thee run- on sentences. Try to rewrite them in order to be more
readable.
Avoid Inversions
Inversions in sentences make texts diﬃcult to read and understand. The
writer should take care to avoid them, e.g.:
Adding to the scien�ﬁc confusion is the rivalry between one AIDS virus dis-
CHAPTER TWO
19.
coverer, Robert Gallo, and a team at the Ins�tut Pasteur in Paris.
Inversion in this instant can be removed in the following way:
There is rivalry between one AIDS virus discoverer, Robert Gallo and a team at
the Ins�tut Pasteur in Paris. This has added to the scien�ﬁc confusion.
Avoid Extended Subjects
Extended subjects or subjects which are followed by a descrip�ve phrase,
make it hard for the reader to iden�fy the sentence skeleton. The brain easily
recognizes a sentence skeleton in simple sentences. For example:
Some viruses enter the body through contaminated food and water.
It is much more diﬃcult to iden�fy a sentence skeleton with an “extended
subject”, for example.
AIDS researcher’s awareness that some of the neurological ills associated
with the disease were caused by secondary infec�ons such as toxoplasmosis,
or herpes, did not like to explain why other AIDS pa�ents had equally severe
neurological problems in the absence of those infec�ons.
In this extract everything underlined is the sentence subject – an extended
subject. In order to iden�fy the sentence skeleton the brain most ﬁrst iden�fy
the main verb. At the same �me it tries to hold other informa�on in “cold
storage”. This causes diﬃcul�es for the reader.
This readability diﬃculty can be avoided by total rewri�ng, so as to eliminate
the en�re extended subject, e.g.:
Aids researchers were aware that some of the neurological ills associated
with the diseases were caused by secondary infec�on such as toxoplasmosis,
an infec�on of the brain caused by a parasite, or herpes. They did not help to
explain why other Aids pa�ents had equally severe neurological problems in
absence of those infec�ons.
20.
CHAPTER TWO
Exercise (C)
Examine several ar�cles from science educa�on journals and iden�fy sentences that have:
- inversions
- extended subjects
Discuss them in your groups and make a presenta�on
C TEXT ORGANIZATION/ COHERENCE
Coherence is an important factor in readable texts. The term coherence
means, “the rela�onships which link the meaning of u�erances in a discourse
or the sentence in a text” (Richards et al (1985).
Generally a text has coherence if it is a series of sentences that develop a
main idea (in terms of paragraph, organiza�on, for example). It should have a
topic sentence and suppor�ng sentences which relate to it.
The overall organiza�on of informa�on is crucial in the readability of a text.
When a text is presented in a logical and systema�c manner it becomes
coherent. This makes it more readable because the reader’s expecta�ons concerning the predicted sequence of informa�on – his schemata – are fulﬁlled.
There are several factors a good writer has to consider if he wants his reader
to perceive his message in exactly the manner intended.
Structure Paragraphs
Good paragraphs have a structure which contributes to the readability of a
text. Part of this structure is a topic sentence. The topic sentence (the main
idea of the passage) should be presented as early as possible in order to help
the reader to iden�fy the core subject – ma�er of the paragraph. This should
be supported by major and minor points, which follow the order of informa�on contained in the main idea.
An example of a poorly structured paragraph is:
The environment cons�tutes the surroundings of an organism, both living
(bio�c) and non – living (abio�c or physical). The living organisms in any area
together with all the physical factors make up the ecosystem. A place where
an organism lives is called its habitat. Ecosystems can be large or small, e.g.
CHAPTER TWO
21.
oceans, lakes, small puddles, streams, mashes, trees, forests, dead trees and
dead animals. Ecology is the study of the rela�onship of plants and animals
to each other, and their environment. However, the earth and its atmosphere
where living organisms are found is called the biosphere.
In terms of paragraph structure, it is diﬃcult for the reader to puzzle out just
what message the writer is trying to communicate. In other words what is
this paragraph about? – ecosystems? Is about the environment, habitats or
ecology?
Exercise (D)
Rewrite the above paragraph restructuring it according to a topic sentence.
Sequence of informa�on
A chronological sequence in a text contributes to its readability. For example,
a reader can follow the sequence of the following text clearly
Regula�on of Amino Acids
The body is not able to store excess proteins. Instead excess proteins are broken down in a process called “deamina�on”. In this process, the amino group
(NH2) is removed and ammonia formed. The ammonia is taken to the ornithine cycle, which is a series of reac�ons resul�ng in the forma�on of urea, a
less toxic substance than ammonia. This process is summarized as follows:
2NH3 + CO2
orthinine cycle CO (NH2) +H2O
Ammonia + carbon dioxide)
=
(urea + water)
Tabula�on of Informa�on
Some�mes, text is more diﬃcult to read than tabulated informa�on. Complex
informa�on can o�en be presented in a more readable manner if tabulated.
For example I invite my reader to decide which of the following versions
– prose or tabula�on – is more readable.
The most prominent types of micro – organisms, e.g. viruses, chlamydiae and
ricke�siae, mul�ply inside culture living cells. Viruses have no ribosomes and
do not have both types of nucleic acid, where as ricke�siae and chlamydiae
have DNA and RNA. Chlamydiae are suscep�ble to an�bio�cs and interferon,
22.
CHAPTER TWO
whereas viruses are suscep�ble to interferon but not an�bio�cs.
Both bacteria and mycoplasma can mul�ply in cell free medium and contain
DNA and RNA as well as ribosomes. They are also suscep�ble to an�bio�cs.
Table 1. Tabulated informa�on
Micro-organisms Culture in DNA +
cell free
RNA
medium
Ribosomes Suscep�bility Suscep�bility
to an�bio�cs to inferon
Bacteria
+
+
+
+
+
Mycoplasma
+
+
+
+
-
Ricke�siae
-
+
+
+
-
Chlamydia
-
+
+
+
+
Viruses
-
-
-
-
-
POINTS TO REMEMBER
36.
In using the readability formula we shall bear the following in mind:
1. Sentences refer to complete sentences within the 100 word extract.
A sentence contains words that occur between a capital le�er and a
punctua�on mark, or words that occur
between a pair of conjoining full stops, exclama�on points, ques�on
marks etc.
2. Words are those making up the complete sentence; i.e., a word refers
to a string of le�ers or characters
separated by spaces. The following are considered words: 1992,
2000, cm, 1991-92, Dip. Med. and 35.6.
3. Syllables – each vowel sounded in a word corresponds to one syllable.
Individual components of
abbrevia�ons should be considered as one syllable (whether consonant or vowel). K.N.H.L.M.P. would be
considered six syllables.
4. Ten (100 words) passages analyzed gives the ease or diﬃcult of a
textbook
ANNEX
31.
ANNEX: EVALUATING READABILITY
There are a number of ways of evalua�ng readability. Primarily they involve
evalua�on of the reader’s understanding through:
•
•
•
Reading speciﬁca�ons
Ques�ons about your manual
Observa�ons on how readers use your textbook and how o�en.
Evalua�ng readability as men�oned is achieved by determining the reader’s
understanding of the contents, or by assessing the readability or diﬃcult
through:
PERFORMANCE TESTING
The Reading/Recall Test
A random sample of the target readership is asked to read a par�cular
sec�on(s) of the science textbook and is then tested on cogni�ve and performance skills.
Method:
• Ask the user to read a passage from your textbook, then ask him to
explain in his own words what he has read or understood.
• Give the reader a passage from your science textbook which explains
how to perform a task, let him read it, then ask him how to perform
the task. Allow him to keep the passage so that he can refer to it. Can
he perform the task and what does he ﬁnd diﬃcult?
• Record how readers use your textbook and how o�en.
Cloze Test and Readability Formulas
These tests will determine the reading ability of the users, provided that the
language employed is of a level at which they are expected to be competent.
Cloze Test
This test is quite reliable because it uses the actual target audience. The
ANNEX
32.
reader is simply asked to replace words which have been deleted from a text
which he would normally be expected to decode and comprehend.
Method
• Select one or more texts. Each text should contain about 300 words
and should not be broken up by graphs or diagrams. Give the text a
�tle.
• Write out the message leaving out every ﬁ�h or seventh word. Do
not delete any words from the ﬁrst and last sentences.
• Ask a random group of readers to ﬁll in the words they think should
go in the spaces. Allow as much �me as is required.
• When the readers have ﬁnished, ask them to count the words they
have answered correctly.
• Convert the correct words into a percentage as follows:
Total readability index of passage = Number of correct words x 100
_________________________
Total number of missing words
Group the scores into three categories and analyze them as indicated in the
table (A):
Table A
A. User understanding
of Science Educa�on
Textbook
B. Readability of Science
Educa�on Textbook
C. Percentages %
Fluency; able to read and
understand
Readable
60 – 100
Instruc�onal level; the
user needs help to learn
from the Science Educa�on Textbook
Partly Readable
40 – 60
Frustra�on level
Unreadable
0 – 40
ANNEX
33.
Readability Formula
An example of readability formula is the Flesch Readability Formula. It determines the complexity of the sentences (syntax) and diﬃculty of vocabulary
(lexis). This formula is useful in determining the reading ease of several textbooks. It is easy to administer. The authors also discuss it in How to Analyse
the Readability of Teaching and Learning Text books by Personal Judgment
method.
The Flesch formula is scored using what is known as the Reading Ease Score
(RES):
Very Easy…
Easy…
Fairly Easy…
Standard…
Fairly Diﬃcult…
Diﬃcult…
Very Diﬃcult…
90 and above
81-90
71-80
61-70
51-60
31-50
0-30
Method:
The Flesch nomogram is used in determining the reading ease of the text (see
ﬁgure below), and in calcula�ng the RES as follows:
1. Take several 100-word passages from a science educa�on textbook.
2. Select at random and decide where you will start coun�ng from: the
beginning, middle or end of the reading passage.
3. Count the number of complete sentences within the passage.
4. Count the number of words in the passage.
5. Divide the total number of words by the number of sentences to
determine the number of words per sentence.
6. Determine the number of syllables per 100 words (each vowel
sounded in a word corresponds to one syllable).
To calculate ease or diﬃculty of the passage:
7. Place a ruler between the number of words per sentence in the
passage (indicated on the le�-hand column) and the number of
syllables per 100 words in the passage (as shown in the right-hand
column) of the nomogram.
34.
8.
ANNEX
Note the point at which the ruler bisects the central column. This
ﬁgure is the reading ease score which indicates how easy or diﬃcult
the text is:
READING EASE
SCORE
very easy
WORDS PER
SENTENCE
easy
fairly easy
standard
fairly diﬃcult
diﬃcult
very diﬃcult
Figure 4:
SYLLABLES PER
100 WORDS
very easy
easy
fairly easy
standard
fairly diﬃcult
diﬃcult
very diﬃcult
Flesch formula nomogram.
ANNEX
35.
A passage with 15 words per sentence and 140 syllables per 100 words has an
RES of approximately 73.
Several Reading Ease Scores from a science text can give a good picture of
how easy or diﬃcult the book is.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
37.
The terms in the text which have been bolded in single quota�on marks are
deﬁned below:
Accessibility:
This deals with how well the informa�on is and how easy it is.
Anaphoric reference:
Reference to words in a text, which have already been men�oned.
Applicability:
This deals with whether the contents help users apply the materials.
Availability:
This actually refers to the actual presence of the book when needed.
Cataphoric reference:
Reference to words in a text, which are about to be
men�oned.
Co-reference:
The word to which either the anaphoric or cataphoric reference coheres.
Discourse marker:
A conjunc�on or word which joins two clauses and acts as a map of reference.
Ellipsis:
The prac�ce of omi�ng words from a sentences, because including them
would result in unnecessary repe��on.
Noun Compound:
An object or idea expressed by two or more consecu�ve nouns, e.g. textbook
designs.
Readability:
The ability to understand the meaning of a text easily and quickly. This means
the reader can eﬀec�vely remember important facts about the text later.
Reading Ease Score:
This is a score that makes a text easy or diﬃcult to understand depending on
its measurement on a ra�ng even point scale. For example, a scale between 0
– 30 is a very diﬃcult text while one between 61 – 70 is standard and 81 – 90
easy. The higher the score the easier the text.
Schema:
The reader’s expecta�ons concerning the predicted sequence of informa�on
of a text.
Sentence Skeleton:
A simple sentence or that part of the sentence which includes the subject,
the main verb and the object.
38.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Short Circuit:
This is what occurs when the reader’s mind is overloaded with informa�on
which it cannot store in short term memory, making it diﬃcult to process
Short term memory:
That part of the memory which is used to store short term informa�on or
informa�on which has just been learned.
Standard Reading Ease Score (RES):
This is a score between a range of 61 – 70 in which the passage of the text has
fewer sentences, fewer words within a passage of 100 word and low syllables
per 100 words.
Subs�tu�on by zero:
Omi�ng a noun or verb that has been previously men�oned in a sentence, if
repeated it has been determined to be unnecessary.
Syntax:
The study of how words combine to form sentences and the rules which govern the forma�on of these sentences.
Usability:
This refers to whether the contents are relevant and at the right level for the
reader.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
39.
1. Chalker,S.C.,Current English Grammar. Macmillan,(1984).
2. Chalker, A.M., The Short Circuit Hypothesis of ESL Reading or when language
Competence Interferes with Reading Performance. P. Carrell, J. Devine and
D. Eskey (ed).Interac�ve Approached to Second Language Reading, Cambridge
University: Cambridge(1988).
3. Coke. E.U and E.L Note on a Simple Algorithm for Computer Bothkopf,.
produced Reading Score. Journal of Applied of Psychology, 208 – 210 (1970).
4. Davies, A.,Simple, Simpliﬁed and Simpliﬁca�on. What is Authen�c? J.C .
Alderson and A.H Urquhart (eds) Reading in a Foreign Language, Longman:
London,(1984).
9. Elley, B.W., Exploring the Reading Diﬃcul�es of Second Language Learers
in Fiji. J.C Alderson and A.H Urquart (eds) Reading in a Foreign Language ,
Longman: London(1984).
10. Flesch, R.F., The Art of Readable Wri�ng. Harper and Brothers: New York, (1949).
11. Fournier, D, M. Dowling R. Ritson, Design Strategies for Educa�onal Materials.
WHO Geneva, (1991).
12. Fry, E.B., A Readability Formula that Saves Time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513-16,
575-578, (1968).
13. Gammell, H.,Guidelines on How to Produce a Manual. World Health Organiza�on.
Health Learning Materials Project Kathmandu, Nepal. Ciba – geigy, Limited, Basle,
Switzerland,, (1988).
14. Grellet, F. Developing reading skills .Cambridge University Press, (1981).
15. Gunning R.,The technique of clear wri�ng. Longman: London, (1988).
16. Haliday M.A.K.and Cohesion in English, Longman: London R.Hassan, (1976).
17. Hedge, T. Wri�ng. Oxford University Press, (1997).
18. Johns M.A. Coherence and Academic Wri�ng: Some deﬁni�ons and sugges�ons
for Teaching, Tesol Quarterly 20. (2) 247-265, (1986).
19. Kent L.T, Six Sugges�ons for Teaching Paragraph Cohesion,.Technical wri�ng and
Communica�on, 13 (3) 269-274, (1983).
20. Kintsch, W. and D. Vipond
Reading Comprehension and Readability in
Educa�onal Prac�ce and Psychological Theory. In L-G Nilson (ed). Perspec�ves on
Memory Research. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (1979).
21. Kirkman J. Good Style for Scien�ﬁc and Engineering Wri�ng,Pi�man Publishing:
London, (1980).
22. KirkPatrick, B. The rase Authorized Rogets Thesaurus of English Words and Phs,
Longman: London, (1982).
23. McCall W.A. and L.M. Crabbs,Standard Test Lessons in Reading; Teacher’s Manual
for All Books. Bureau of Publica�ons , Columbia University:New Teachers’ College
(Revised 1950; Revised 1961):New York, (1925).
24. McCarthy M.J. A New Look at Vocabulary in E.F.L. University of Birmingham, (1984).
40.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
25. Peil, M., Social Science Research Methods Hand book for Africa, E. A. Educa�on
Publishers: Nairobi, (1995).
26. Sesnan, B. How to Teach English Oxford University Press. (1997).
27. Stevens K.C. Readability Formula and McCall-Crabbs Standard Test Lessons in
Reading. Reading Teacher, 33,413-415, (1980).
28. Vogel, M. and Washburn, An Objec�ve Method of Determining Grade Placement
of Children’s Reading Material. Elementary School Journal 28,373-381, (1928).
29. Weiss,R.,“Vocabulary Syntax and Cohesion in Reading Comprehension”. In J.M.
Ulijin and A.K. Pugh (eds), Reading for Professional Purposes, Leaven Acco.(1985).
30. Warner,D.and Bower, Helping Health Workers Learn, Hesperian Founda�on. (1982).
31. Widdowson,, H.G. The Process and Purpose of Reading. Explora�ons in Applied
Linguis�cs, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (1979).
32. Weirsma, W. Research Methods in Educa�on; An Introduc�on 3rd ed. Allyn and
Bacon Inc. London, (1995).
33. Zeitlyn, J. Appropriate media for Training and Development. Bangladesh University
Press, (1992).