	March/April 2006
Using Adapted Texts in ELL Clasrooms By Alex Ragan, ELL Outlook™ Editor You don't need piles of empirical research to show that English language learners (ELLs) often have a very hard time understanding texts in English, especially as content gets more difficult in the upper grade levels. Limited background knowledge, lack of native language literacy, and limited English language proficiency (in terms of vocabulary, knowledge of sentence structure, etc.) are just some of the reasons ELLs struggle with reading fiction and nonfiction texts. We also know that input needs to be comprehensible for kids to understand-or enjoy-what they are reading. Put simply, if ELLs have no way of grasping what they're reading, then there's really no point in reading at all. So what's the solution? Teachers or publishers will sometimes try to modify or adapt texts in order to make them more comprehensible. This is usually done either through leveling methods or applying readability formulas. The end goal of text modifications or adaptations is to add, delete, or modify the language and concepts of texts to enable ELLs to understand concepts that may not have been previously accessible due to their lack of English language proficiency, background knowledge, or reading ability. The challenge of adapting texts, of course, is to meet this need for comprehensible input-providing materials that kids can read-while at the same time progressively increasing the difficulty of readings so that ELLs can learn to be better readers in English. We want ELLs to be able to read independently and to continue to learn grade-level content while they are gaining English language proficiency. At the same time, we also want ELLs to be continuously challenged to read more difficult texts, sharpening their vocabulary knowledge, sentence-level understanding, and use of reading strategies. This article explores some methods for text adaptation and discusses some of the benefits and drawbacks of text adaptations. The article ends with some questions for determining who might benefit most from adapted text, why adapted texts should be used, how adapted texts should be used, and when adapted texts should used. Throughout the article, consideration is given to ELLs' short- and long-term academic achievement when using adapted texts. How Are Texts Adapted? According to researchers (e.g., Oh, 2001; Young, 1999), there are two primary ways of adapting texts-simplification and elaboration. Since the way in which a text is used in instruction has a lot to do with the way in which it was adapted, it is important to understand the differences between the two. Simplified Texts. Texts can be linguistically simplified by substituting frequently occurring vocabulary for infrequently occurring nontechnical vocabulary, shortening sentence length, and restructuring sentences to reduce their complexity. The goal of linguistic simplification is to improve readability (i.e., the average length of words and sentences). When simplifying a text for ELLs, the purpose of adaptation is to eliminate overly complex language that might prevent a student from understanding the main ideas of the text. Elaborated Texts. Elaborated texts aim to clarify, elaborate, and explain implicit information and make connections explicit. To this end, words are often added to increase comprehension. The goal is to make a text more coherent and limit the ambiguity within it. Unlike linguistic simplification, improved text coherence (or understandability) does not necessarily decrease the difficulty of a text as measured by readability formulas. Methods to improve text coherence also do not usually focus on one or two discrete text features (e.g., number of syllables or word frequency). In practice, most text adaptations involve a combination of simplification and elaboration. For example, a teacher may simplify difficult sentences in a text while at the same time adding additional background information to make a concept more clear. Benefits and Drawbacks of Text Adaptation Using adapted texts with ELLs is something of a double-edged sword. Their use has both inherent benefits and drawbacks for ELLs' short- and long-term academic achievement. Potential Benefits If ELLs are overwhelmed by the difficulty of a text (either because of linguistic complexity, the inherent difficulty of the subject matter, or a combination of both factors), they will be unable to learn the content it presents. If the classroom curriculum depends in large part on reading a textbook, they may not be able to participate in class. Thus, one of the most salient benefits of text adaptations is the potential for increased comprehensibility and decreased frustration, leading to greater academic success and self-confidence. These benefits can be seen in three ways. First, linguistic simplification will presumably decrease the language load a reader must grapple with, allowing ELLs to concentrate on understanding the content of the text without being overly inhibited by difficult vocabulary or complex sentences. They will enjoy greater access to the concepts of a text instead of being completely caught up with the difficulty of language. For example, simpler vocabulary would allow a learner to focus on the essential meaning of the passage without being overly frustrated by unfamiliar words. With less effort expended in decoding, students would enjoy greater ability to focus on comprehension. They would be able to read more fluently. Shorter sentences, with fewer dependent clauses, might also be easier for students to parse. Second, if a text is elaborated to provide greater text coherence, it should thus lead to higher levels of comprehension. An elaborated text should help to make explicit many of the implicit references and background knowledge required for complete understanding. Text elaboration might also help to alleviate the difficulties less skilled readers have when relying on imprecise or incorrect background knowledge. Finally, simplified texts, especially those commercially available from educational publishers, have certain advantages for teachers. With a limited amount of time to differentiate instruction for students and limited training in working with ELLs, teachers may find simplified texts to be the only comprehensive solution. This argument seems especially persuasive in the case of beginning-level ELLs with limited prior formal schooling. Potential Drawbacks Texts that are either simplified or elaborated may have disadvantages for readers. This is the case for three primary reasons. First, a text that is simplified may prevent students from being exposed to the vocabulary and text structures that they will eventually need to know. More importantly, rewriting text with easier words does not necessarily improve comprehension. Take the following example of an original passage and its simplified version (Tierney & Pearson, 1994, p. 503): Today's Cricket (original) The batsman were merciless against the bowlers. The bowlers place heir men in slips and cover. But to no avail. The batsman hit a lot of fours. They hit some sixes. No ball hit the stumps. No ball was caught. Today's Cricket (revised version) The men were at bat against the bowlers. They did not show any pity. The bowlers placed their men in slips. They placed their men in covers. It did not help. The batsmen hit a lot of fours. They hit some sixes. No ball hit the stumps. No ball was caught. Even with language that is simpler (at least from a readability perspective), the meaning of the passage is still unclear without the necessary background knowledge about cricket. Shorter, simpler sentences may not always increase comprehensibility. In fact, in some cases, grammatical complexity may even aid comprehension and recall, rather than hinder them. Second, an elaborated text might make for more coherent and comprehensible reading, but at the same time may remove the inherent ambiguity that makes reading interesting and nuanced. According to Kintsch (1994), with adequate background knowledge, coherence gaps in texts actually stimulate learning. Texts that are made too explicit may become boring, eliminating the challenge or puzzle of making an ambiguous text more coherent. Finally, although texts should be easy enough for students to understand, tasks that are too easy never provide learners with the opportunity to see what they can do, and thus may end up undermining confidence in the long term. If students only read texts that they can read easily, there is no reason to practice and apply strategies; readers will only apply strategic thinking if they read more difficult texts. The Who, Why, How, and When of Adapting Texts Using adapted texts with ELLs may be the only way these learners can access grade-level content. At the same time, however, constantly reading adapted texts may not challenge students to develop language and reading ability in the long term. So how do we decide? A set of who, why, how, and when questions can help to decide whether or not the use of adapted texts makes sense instructionally. Who Will Benefit From Adapted Texts? Adapted texts may not meet the needs of all ELLs. In the same way that an effective assessment system should be able to identify prerequisite skills, cognitive deficits, and gaps in background knowledge, a student's specific learning needs and background knowledge should be taken into account when deciding whether to use adapted texts with a specific reader. The gap between a student's skills and knowledge must be closely matched with the difficulty of a text. Take, for example, an American history lesson on the gold rush, where a number of ELLs lack the background knowledge needed to understand a text passage assigned for homework. An elaborated text, which explicitly explains the significance of the gold rush in California, may be of great use to ELLs who are not from the United States. So might a set of supplementary readings that help to put the textbook passage in context. A simplified passage with easier vocabulary may not. Why Would Reading Adapted Texts Be a More Effective Solution Than Another Instructional Strategy? Adapted texts have inherent strengths and weaknesses that must be considered in the context of instruction. Another instructional strategy may be more appropriate. Would a read-aloud situation make a text accessible in a way students may not be able to achieve individually, thus making a simplified or elaborated text unnecessary? Could similar goals be achieved through teaching students strategies such as Questioning the Author (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1998), in which they are actively involved with the text as they read? How Will Adapted Texts Be Used? Adapted texts may not be ideal in all instructional settings. What is necessary to make a text easy to learn from is not necessarily the same as what will help students learn on their own. The need for adapted texts depends in large part on how much support, or scaffolding, a teacher is able to provide during reading. For example, an adapted text may not challenge students sufficiently during guided reading, when a teacher is able to paraphrase difficult sentences or fill in gaps in students' background knowledge as needed. Yet during homogeneous group work, in which several beginning-level ELLs are trying to read the instructions for a science experiment, a text that is linguistically simplified and enhanced with visuals may be one of the only ways these students can learn the same concepts as their native-English speaking peers. When Will Adapted Texts Be Used? A simplified or elaborated text may be of more or less use depending on when it is used. Will the text be assigned as part of an assessment (when helping a student may unfairly alter his or her performance), or as part of a larger thematic unit (when a set of progressively more difficult texts could be used over the course of a week to more deeply explore a central theme)? The goals of instruction, drawn from state standards, should also be considered when deciding if adapted texts should be used. If a lesson focuses on teaching students how to make inferences and thus link together the seemingly disparate paragraphs of a science text, a fully elaborated text would be a poor choice. Developing readers need to learn that pieces of a text are meant to be understood as parts to a whole and that they (the readers) are responsible for making the pieces fit together. In the case of a mini-lesson on the adaptations coyotes make in a human environment, a short, simplified text on coyotes might be the fastest and easiest method for helping students with poor decoding skills and limited background knowledge participate in what the whole class is learning. Conclusion Adapted texts aren't the ideal educational method for everyone. They also shouldn't be a long-term solution to an ELL's lack of English language proficiency or inability to read difficult or complex texts. At the same time, adapted texts are sometimes an ideal method for helping ELLs overcome the complexity of difficult language in order to learn subject-specific content. References Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1998). Getting at the meaning: How to help students unpack difficult text. American Educator, 22(1&2), 66-71, 85. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294-303. Oh, S. Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69-96. Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Learning to learn from text: A framework for improving classroom practice. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 496-513). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Young, D. J. (1999). Linguistic simplification of SL reading material: Effective instructional practice? Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 350-366. If you have any comments about this article or questions for for the author, please send them to: alex@coursecrafters.com.
Copyright © 2006 Course Crafters, Inc.® All rights reserved.

March/April 2006

Using Adapted Texts in ELL Clasrooms

By Alex Ragan, ELL Outlook™ Editor

You don't need piles of empirical research to show that English language learners (ELLs) often have a very hard time understanding texts in English, especially as content gets more difficult in the upper grade levels. Limited background knowledge, lack of native language literacy, and limited English language proficiency (in terms of vocabulary, knowledge of sentence structure, etc.) are just some of the reasons ELLs struggle with reading fiction and nonfiction texts. We also know that input needs to be comprehensible for kids to understand-or enjoy-what they are reading. Put simply, if ELLs have no way of grasping what they're reading, then there's really no point in reading at all.

So what's the solution? Teachers or publishers will sometimes try to modify or adapt texts in order to make them more comprehensible. This is usually done either through leveling methods or applying readability formulas. The end goal of text modifications or adaptations is to add, delete, or modify the language and concepts of texts to enable ELLs to understand concepts that may not have been previously accessible due to their lack of English language proficiency, background knowledge, or reading ability.

The challenge of adapting texts, of course, is to meet this need for comprehensible input-providing materials that kids can read-while at the same time progressively increasing the difficulty of readings so that ELLs can learn to be better readers in English. We want ELLs to be able to read independently and to continue to learn grade-level content while they are gaining English language proficiency. At the same time, we also want ELLs to be continuously challenged to read more difficult texts, sharpening their vocabulary knowledge, sentence-level understanding, and use of reading strategies.

This article explores some methods for text adaptation and discusses some of the benefits and drawbacks of text adaptations. The article ends with some questions for determining who might benefit most from adapted text, why adapted texts should be used, how adapted texts should be used, and when adapted texts should used. Throughout the article, consideration is given to ELLs' short- and long-term academic achievement when using adapted texts.

How Are Texts Adapted?

According to researchers (e.g., Oh, 2001; Young, 1999), there are two primary ways of adapting texts-simplification and elaboration. Since the way in which a text is used in instruction has a lot to do with the way in which it was adapted, it is important to understand the differences between the two.

Simplified Texts. Texts can be linguistically simplified by substituting frequently occurring vocabulary for infrequently occurring nontechnical vocabulary, shortening sentence length, and restructuring sentences to reduce their complexity. The goal of linguistic simplification is to improve readability (i.e., the average length of words and sentences). When simplifying a text for ELLs, the purpose of adaptation is to eliminate overly complex language that might prevent a student from understanding the main ideas of the text.
Elaborated Texts. Elaborated texts aim to clarify, elaborate, and explain implicit information and make connections explicit. To this end, words are often added to increase comprehension. The goal is to make a text more coherent and limit the ambiguity within it. Unlike linguistic simplification, improved text coherence (or understandability) does not necessarily decrease the difficulty of a text as measured by readability formulas. Methods to improve text coherence also do not usually focus on one or two discrete text features (e.g., number of syllables or word frequency). In practice, most text adaptations involve a combination of simplification and elaboration. For example, a teacher may simplify difficult sentences in a text while at the same time adding additional background information to make a concept more clear.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Text Adaptation

Using adapted texts with ELLs is something of a double-edged sword. Their use has both inherent benefits and drawbacks for ELLs' short- and long-term academic achievement.

Potential Benefits

If ELLs are overwhelmed by the difficulty of a text (either because of linguistic complexity, the inherent difficulty of the subject matter, or a combination of both factors), they will be unable to learn the content it presents. If the classroom curriculum depends in large part on reading a textbook, they may not be able to participate in class. Thus, one of the most salient benefits of text adaptations is the potential for increased comprehensibility and decreased frustration, leading to greater academic success and self-confidence. These benefits can be seen in three ways.

First, linguistic simplification will presumably decrease the language load a reader must grapple with, allowing ELLs to concentrate on understanding the content of the text without being overly inhibited by difficult vocabulary or complex sentences. They will enjoy greater access to the concepts of a text instead of being completely caught up with the difficulty of language. For example, simpler vocabulary would allow a learner to focus on the essential meaning of the passage without being overly frustrated by unfamiliar words.

With less effort expended in decoding, students would enjoy greater ability to focus on comprehension. They would be able to read more fluently. Shorter sentences, with fewer dependent clauses, might also be easier for students to parse.

Second, if a text is elaborated to provide greater text coherence, it should thus lead to higher levels of comprehension. An elaborated text should help to make explicit many of the implicit references and background knowledge required for complete understanding. Text elaboration might also help to alleviate the difficulties less skilled readers have when relying on imprecise or incorrect background knowledge.

Finally, simplified texts, especially those commercially available from educational publishers, have certain advantages for teachers. With a limited amount of time to differentiate instruction for students and limited training in working with ELLs, teachers may find simplified texts to be the only comprehensive solution. This argument seems especially persuasive in the case of beginning-level ELLs with limited prior formal schooling.

Potential Drawbacks

Texts that are either simplified or elaborated may have disadvantages for readers. This is the case for three primary reasons.

First, a text that is simplified may prevent students from being exposed to the vocabulary and text structures that they will eventually need to know. More importantly, rewriting text with easier words does not necessarily improve comprehension. Take the following example of an original passage and its simplified version (Tierney & Pearson, 1994, p. 503):

Today's Cricket (original)

The batsman were merciless against the bowlers. The bowlers place heir men in slips and cover. But to no avail. The batsman hit a lot of fours. They hit some sixes. No ball hit the stumps. No ball was caught.

Today's Cricket (revised version)

The men were at bat against the bowlers. They did not show any pity. The bowlers placed their men in slips. They placed their men in covers. It did not help. The batsmen hit a lot of fours. They hit some sixes. No ball hit the stumps. No ball was caught.

Even with language that is simpler (at least from a readability perspective), the meaning of the passage is still unclear without the necessary background knowledge about cricket. Shorter, simpler sentences may not always increase comprehensibility. In fact, in some cases, grammatical complexity may even aid comprehension and recall, rather than hinder them.

Second, an elaborated text might make for more coherent and comprehensible reading, but at the same time may remove the inherent ambiguity that makes reading interesting and nuanced. According to Kintsch (1994), with adequate background knowledge, coherence gaps in texts actually stimulate learning. Texts that are made too explicit may become boring, eliminating the challenge or puzzle of making an ambiguous text more coherent.

Finally, although texts should be easy enough for students to understand, tasks that are too easy never provide learners with the opportunity to see what they can do, and thus may end up undermining confidence in the long term. If students only read texts that they can read easily, there is no reason to practice and apply strategies; readers will only apply strategic thinking if they read more difficult texts.

The Who, Why, How, and When of Adapting Texts

Using adapted texts with ELLs may be the only way these learners can access grade-level content. At the same time, however, constantly reading adapted texts may not challenge students to develop language and reading ability in the long term. So how do we decide?

A set of who, why, how, and when questions can help to decide whether or not the use of adapted texts makes sense instructionally.

Who Will Benefit From Adapted Texts?

Adapted texts may not meet the needs of all ELLs. In the same way that an effective assessment system should be able to identify prerequisite skills, cognitive deficits, and gaps in background knowledge, a student's specific learning needs and background knowledge should be taken into account when deciding whether to use adapted texts with a specific reader. The gap between a student's skills and knowledge must be closely matched with the difficulty of a text.

Take, for example, an American history lesson on the gold rush, where a number of ELLs lack the background knowledge needed to understand a text passage assigned for homework. An elaborated text, which explicitly explains the significance of the gold rush in California, may be of great use to ELLs who are not from the United States. So might a set of supplementary readings that help to put the textbook passage in context. A simplified passage with easier vocabulary may not.

Why Would Reading Adapted Texts Be a More Effective Solution Than Another Instructional Strategy?

Adapted texts have inherent strengths and weaknesses that must be considered in the context of instruction. Another instructional strategy may be more appropriate. Would a read-aloud situation make a text accessible in a way students may not be able to achieve individually, thus making a simplified or elaborated text unnecessary? Could similar goals be achieved through teaching students strategies such as Questioning the Author (Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1998), in which they are actively involved with the text as they read?

How Will Adapted Texts Be Used?

Adapted texts may not be ideal in all instructional settings. What is necessary to make a text easy to learn from is not necessarily the same as what will help students learn on their own. The need for adapted texts depends in large part on how much support, or scaffolding, a teacher is able to provide during reading.

For example, an adapted text may not challenge students sufficiently during guided reading, when a teacher is able to paraphrase difficult sentences or fill in gaps in students' background knowledge as needed. Yet during homogeneous group work, in which several beginning-level ELLs are trying to read the instructions for a science experiment, a text that is linguistically simplified and enhanced with visuals may be one of the only ways these students can learn the same concepts as their native-English speaking peers.

When Will Adapted Texts Be Used?

A simplified or elaborated text may be of more or less use depending on when it is used. Will the text be assigned as part of an assessment (when helping a student may unfairly alter his or her performance), or as part of a larger thematic unit (when a set of progressively more difficult texts could be used over the course of a week to more deeply explore a central theme)?

The goals of instruction, drawn from state standards, should also be considered when deciding if adapted texts should be used. If a lesson focuses on teaching students how to make inferences and thus link together the seemingly disparate paragraphs of a science text, a fully elaborated text would be a poor choice. Developing readers need to learn that pieces of a text are meant to be understood as parts to a whole and that they (the readers) are responsible for making the pieces fit together. In the case of a mini-lesson on the adaptations coyotes make in a human environment, a short, simplified text on coyotes might be the fastest and easiest method for helping students with poor decoding skills and limited background knowledge participate in what the whole class is learning.

Conclusion

Adapted texts aren't the ideal educational method for everyone. They also shouldn't be a long-term solution to an ELL's lack of English language proficiency or inability to read difficult or complex texts. At the same time, adapted texts are sometimes an ideal method for helping ELLs overcome the complexity of difficult language in order to learn subject-specific content.

References

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1998). Getting at the meaning: How to help

students unpack difficult text. American Educator, 22(1&2), 66-71, 85.

Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294-303.

Oh, S. Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus
elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69-96.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Learning to learn from text: A framework for improving

classroom practice. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 496-513). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Young, D. J. (1999). Linguistic simplification of SL reading material: Effective instructional practice?
Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 350-366.

If you have any comments about this article or questions for for the author, please send them to: alex@coursecrafters.com.

Using Adapted Texts in ELL Clasrooms

By Alex Ragan, ELL Outlook™ Editor

How Are Texts Adapted?

Benefits and Drawbacks of Text Adaptation

The Who, Why, How, and When of Adapting Texts

Conclusion