Abstract
The goal of matching texts to readers can be aided by using readability formulas in concert with considering text, task, reader, and strategy variables. For example, signaling makes sentences longer and readability scores soar, but eases readability for readers employing the structure strategy and looking for such signals. Coherent texts are easier to understand. The top-level structure of a text and its clarity to readers, enhanced by signaling, are important factors to consider when matching readers with appropriate text materials. Examples of readers from grade 5 to retirement years demonstrate the importance of text structure as an aspect of readability.
Educators want students to be able to learn proficiently from reading, to understand the information in a text, and integrate it with their growing knowledge about a topic. Teachers do not want the packaging of the text to interfere with a student's understanding; therefore, a match is needed between the text and the characteristics of the student. This goal of best matching texts and readers is the motivation for developing readability measures. This is not an easy goal to reach because of the complexity of the interaction among text, task, reader, and strategy variables involved in reading as depicted in Figure 1 (Jenkins, 1979; Meyer & Rice, 1983). This article focuses on many of the text variables shown in the Figure 1 and how they interact with some of the reader, strategy, and task variables to affect readability.
The dictionary defines readable as interesting, easy to read, or legible (Neufeldt et al., 1991). This short definition captures important aspects of readability. Most of the classic work on readability has focused on the second part of this definition, easy to read, but the reader variable of interest (e.g., Scheifele & Krapp, 1996) and the text variable of legibility (e.g., Hartley & Harris, 2001) are also relevant. Also, some of the task variables identified in Figure 1 affect reading ease and comprehension. Task variables, such as the pace of presenting information or the way information is presented (e.g., printed materials, Web-based materials) can influence an individual's ability to learn and remember information from text. Meyer, Talbot, and Florencio (1999) found that when reading computer-paced text at a slower pace (90 words per minute) younger and older adults showed better recall of information than at a faster pace (130 words per minute). Meyer and Poon (1997) found that presenting information on computers enabled young adults to learn more efficiently than reading from text printed on paper, whereas presenting older adults with information on computers impeded their performance, which was more efficient when reading from the more traditional printed page.