ESL reading textbooks vs. university textbooks: Are we giving our

students the input they may need?

Don MillerJournal of English for Academic Purposes

(2011)

BackgroundLearners have challenges in reading related

to lexical knowledge, syntax, and register“Most studies of university language

conclude with the recommendation that findings be used to inform materials development” (p.33)

What was the problem that Miller identified with regards to AEP reading programs and university prep?Reading materials for AEPs often do not reflect

the types of reading that students will do in university settings

Second language textbooks vs. target languageStudies conducted comparing ESL textbooks to research

articles, corpora for grammatical features, RS, etc. (may be unfair to make comparisons with specific corpora)

Little study done on reading textbooks (those that have compared thematic rather than linguistic points)

Little analysis of university textbooksThree points raised:

“Mismatch” between ESL materials and target languageMust consider what is being compared so we draw relevant

conclusionsFew studies on ESL reading materials; none on comparison

between advanced level material and target language material

Lack of Empirical Demonstration“[…]it has yet to be demonstrated empirically

that lexico-grammatical features of training text are important for academic reading skill development. However, […] it can be argued theoretically that the presence or lack of lexico-grammatical features in training texts may indeed have some effect” (p.34).

Do you agree/disagree with Miller’s assertion in response to the lack of empirical evidence? Why?

Remaining ResearchWhat are the effects of lexico-grammatical decoding

skills using non-academic texts on development of reading ability for academic texts:Identify differences between the twoDetermine if the differences matter

Miller’s paper focuses on first Research questions (p.35)

Do the texts in popular ESL reading textbooks expose academically oriented students to the type of language they will face in their introductory university classes?

Does the language in popular ESL reading textbooks compare more favorably to certain academic macro disciplines than to others?

Features ExaminedMay indicate inappropriate vocab input

Dense packaging of information may place cognitive demands on reader

May demand more decoding of parts of words/sentences

Corpora ExaminedESL Reading Textbook Corpus

75 reading passages (ESL advanced reading textbooks)

3 texts from “three of the top US ESL publishers” (p.36)

Is this a good sampling procedure? Do you think that it’s representative? Why/why not?

Corpora ExaminedUniversity Textbook Corpus

252,100 words (compared to 69,797 in ESL textbooks)

28 texts from ETS, T2K-SWAL textbook subcorpus

University Textbook Discipline Subcorpora

AnalysisAWL identified using Vocabprofile, VP English

v.2.9Word length & sentence length using

Mircrosoft Word readability toolAll other features using MonoConc Pro 2.0

Results-Question 1

Mann-Whitney U Test showed statistical difference between all but two features (sentence length & finite relative clauses)

Did any of these results surprise you? Any that you thought were more interesting/salient than others?

Results-Question 1Vocabulary

Compression features—seen more in university textbooksNominal modification—large amount of info in noun phrasesNoun—noun sequences

Readability/Compression featuresNo difference in sentence lengthIs readability a good indicator of “difficulty”?

AWL ESL Textbooks

Univ. Textbooks

Running Words 4.78% 8.80%Page of Text (400)

-15 words +15 words

Range of 570 248-391Time seen 2.06 -4.23

times

Results-Macro Discipline (Question 2)Differences between reading

textbooks & univ. textbooksDifferences were similar, but

variation in how pronounced the differences were

Compression varied most with Humanities

Conclusions/ImplicationsClear differences between ESL textbooks &

university textbooksMay be due to the fact that the texts have

different purposes (narrative for reading textbooks and expository for university textbooks)

Materials designers should consider how closely their texts match target text language

Additional focus on AWL

Questions for Discussion Harwood (2005) argues that comparing ESL textbooks to corpora is unfair

since students must “write in a variety of genres” (and read in a variety of genres) (p. 34). Is this study a fair comparison? Why/why not?

“Humanities and Natural Sciences evidenced the largest percentage of offlist words […] accounted for by the prevalence of terminology in the sciences (and humanities)” (p.43). How much difficulty do you think these types of words would pose for ELLs? How could/would you approach these offlist words as a teacher ? As a materials

developer? Would the challenge of these words be at all similar for NSs in these disciplines?

If you were designing an AEP program, would these findings influence the way you designed the program? Why/why not? If yes, how could it influence your design?

This study did not look at “determination of effect that (university textbook vs. ESL textbooks) differences might have on academic reading skill development” (p. 35). How might you investigate this effect? How might those findings add to the conversation?