In short
- Check the level first: with five or more unknown words in every hundred, a text needs work before pupils can read it in volume.
- For a hard text you have three choices: simplify it, support it, or keep it for intensive work.
- In three studies of learners of high school age and older, simplified texts were generally understood better than originals, and elaborated texts did about as well.
- Change words and sentence length, keep the story whole, and only adapt texts you have the right to change.
Your school already has texts it teaches: coursebook passages, local stories, texts from science or history. Pupils study them closely, a paragraph at a time. They rarely read them the way they would read a story, quickly and for meaning. This article shows how to turn those texts into reading units. A reading unit here means one text, or one part of a longer text, with its word list and its questions.
The steps in brief
To turn a curriculum text into a reading unit, check its level against the class. Then choose to simplify it, support it or leave it for intensive work. If you simplify, change vocabulary and sentence length but keep the text natural and whole. Then write the word list and the questions.
- Check the level with a few pupils and a sample of the text.
- Decide whether to simplify the text, support it or leave it.
- Simplify with care. Keep every event and every connecting word.
- Write the word list.
- Write the questions.
- Try the unit with one class and fix what trips them up.
Long texts need one more step, which is dividing them into parts. How to Split a Story Into Reading Units covers that.
Check the level of the text against the class
A text is ready for reading in volume when pupils know nearly all its words. Hu and Nation (2000) tested 66 adult learners on a fiction text with different shares of unknown words. They concluded that reading without help needs about 98% of the words to be known. That is one unknown word in fifty.
The learners in that study were adults, and they had no dictionary or glossary. Use the figure as a guide for pupils, not as a pass mark.
The check takes about ten minutes:
- Choose 100 words from the middle of the text.
- Give the extract to four or five pupils from the middle of the class.
- Ask them to underline every word they do not know.
- Count. Two or fewer suggests the text can be read freely. Five or more means it needs work.
Five unknown words in a hundred is 95% coverage. At that level, most of Hu and Nation's readers did not reach adequate comprehension.
Do not trust a level label alone. Claridge (2012) interviewed editors at four major publishers of graded readers. All four divided their series into levels by headwords and structures. The number of headwords set for a level differed widely from one publisher to the next. How Is a Story Levelled to the CEFR? explains what goes into a level.
Simplify, support, or leave it for intensive work
Not every hard text should be rewritten. You have three options.
| Option | What you do | Choose it when |
|---|---|---|
| Simplify | Rewrite the text with more common words and shorter sentences. | Pupils will read it alone, in volume, and the gap is large. |
| Support | Leave the text as it is. Add a glossary, audio, or a few words taught before reading. | The gap is small, or the exact wording matters. |
| Leave for intensive work | Study the original closely in class, with the teacher's help. | The text is short and its language is the point of the lesson. |
Adapting material has a literature of its own. Tomlinson (2012) reviews the research on evaluating, adapting and producing learning materials, and points to gaps in it.
Intensive work is not second best. Extensive vs. Intensive Reading: What's the Difference? explains why a school needs both kinds.
What research found when texts were compared
Three studies compared versions of the same texts. A simplified text uses easier words and shorter sentences. An elaborated text keeps the hard words but adds explanation and repetition around them.
| Study | Learners | What was compared | What was found |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yano, Long and Ross (1994) | 483 Japanese college students | 13 passages in original, simplified or elaborated form, with 30 multiple-choice items | Comprehension was highest for the simplified version, but not significantly different from the elaborated version. |
| Oh (2001) | 180 Korean high school students at two proficiency levels | Six passages in original, simplified or elaborated form, with an 18-item multiple-choice test | Elaboration was at least as successful as simplification in improving comprehension. Oh recommends it because it keeps more of the qualities of natural text. |
| Crossley, Yang and McNamara (2014) | 48 Spanish-speaking learners aged 15 to 24, at high school or college in Mexico | Nine texts each: original, simplified to intermediate level and simplified to beginning level | Beginning-level texts were read faster and understood better than originals. Intermediate texts sat in the middle, with few differences from either. |
Read these results with care. All three used multiple-choice or true/false questions on sets of passages. None measured what happens when pupils read whole stories week after week. The youngest learners were in high school, so none of this was tested on pupils aged 8 to 14.
Two details matter for your decision. Crossley, Yang and McNamara (2014) found that simplified texts helped learners with lower proficiency most. Learners who knew a topic well coped better with the original. Yano, Long and Ross (1994) found that the kind of change affected which kinds of question learners could answer.
Crossley and colleagues urge caution about their own method. Their learners read one word at a time on a screen.
How to simplify without breaking the text
The aim is a text that a pupil can read alone and that still sounds like a story. Work in this order.
- Words first. Replace rare words with common ones. Keep the words the story cannot be told without.
- Then sentences. Split long sentences. One idea in each sentence is a workable rule for A2.
- Keep the connecting words. Words like 'but', 'so' and 'then' show how events fit together.
- Keep the text whole. Every event in the original should still happen. A summary is not a simplified text.
- Explain instead of cutting. Where a hard idea matters, add a short sentence that makes it clear.
Crossley, Yang and McNamara (2014) give some support for keeping connecting words. They report that more cohesive texts can lead to better comprehension.
These steps are craft advice. The studies above compared finished texts, not ways of rewriting.
A worked example: from B1 to A2
The passage below was written for this article. The original is aimed at B1 and the rewrite at A2. Both levels are our judgement, so test them on your own class.
Original (93 words, aimed at B1)
For as long as anyone could remember, the villagers had depended on the old well at the edge of the village. That summer, however, the rain failed to arrive, and the water level dropped until the bucket came up almost empty. Although the elders insisted that the well had never run dry, Salma, who had been measuring the rope every morning, was convinced that it soon would. She decided to persuade her neighbours to dig a second well before it was too late, even if nobody was willing to listen to a twelve-year-old.
Simplified (100 words, aimed at A2)
The people of the village got their water from an old well. It was at the edge of the village. That summer, the rain did not come. The water in the well went down and down. Soon the bucket came up almost empty. The old people said, 'This well never runs dry.' But Salma did not agree. Every morning she measured the rope. Every morning she needed more rope to reach the water. 'The well will be dry soon,' she thought. She wanted her neighbours to dig a second well. But Salma was only twelve. Would they listen to her?
| Original | Simplified | Why |
|---|---|---|
| the villagers had depended on the old well | The people of the village got their water from an old well. | Past simple replaces past perfect. 'Got' replaces 'depended on'. |
| the water level dropped until the bucket came up almost empty | The water in the well went down and down. Soon the bucket came up almost empty. | One long sentence becomes two. 'Down and down' shows that it took time. |
| Although the elders insisted that the well had never run dry | The old people said, 'This well never runs dry.' | Direct speech replaces reported speech and the clause with 'although'. |
| Salma, who had been measuring the rope every morning | Every morning she measured the rope. Every morning she needed more rope to reach the water. | The relative clause goes. An added sentence explains why the rope matters. |
| even if nobody was willing to listen to a twelve-year-old | But Salma was only twelve. Would they listen to her? | A question keeps the doubt without 'even if' or 'willing'. |
Three things did not change. Every event is still there. The words 'well', 'bucket', 'rope' and 'dig' stay, because the story needs them. The connecting words 'but' and 'soon' still hold the story together.
The original has four sentences of about 23 words each. The rewrite has thirteen, of about eight words each. It is also slightly longer, because added explanation takes words.
Write the word list and the questions
The word list comes from the simplified text, not the original. Choose the words a pupil needs to follow this story and will need again. For the passage above: well, bucket, rope, dig, measure, neighbour.
Keep the list short. Eight to twelve words for each text is a rule of thumb from practice, not a research finding.
Then write the questions. A useful set for one unit has three kinds:
- Plot. Why did Salma think the well would soon be dry?
- Words in context. 'Soon the bucket came up almost empty.' What is a bucket used for?
- The point of the story. Why might the neighbours not listen to Salma?
Take the sentences for vocabulary questions from the text itself. How to Write Vocabulary-in-Context Questions and Reading Comprehension Question Types, With Examples give patterns you can copy.
Two warnings: over-simplifying and copyright
Do not simplify more than the class needs
Yano, Long and Ross (1994) name the cost of simplification. It can remove the very items that learners do not know but need to learn. A text stripped of every new word teaches no new words.
Simplify to the level of the class and no lower. If your check found three or four unknown words in a hundred, a glossary may be enough. Oh (2001) describes fluent reading of unmodified texts as the final goal of reading instruction.
Only adapt texts you have the right to change
A coursebook passage or a published story belongs to its author or publisher. Rewriting it creates an adaptation, and that normally needs the permission of whoever holds the rights. Copyright law differs between countries, so check the rules that apply to your school.
Three kinds of text are safer:
- Texts written by your own staff for the school.
- Texts old enough to be out of copyright in your country.
- Texts published under a licence that allows adaptation.
For anything else, write to the publisher and ask. This is general guidance, not legal advice.
How iRead handles this
In iRead, school packs are written by the school's own teachers or content team in the story editor, around the school's annual or termly curriculum. The same four word games and quizzes are attached automatically. Quiz questions are generated from the story itself, including real sentences from the story and comprehension of the plot. Every story, quiz and game is levelled to the CEFR.
The core principle: Change the words and the sentence length. Keep the story, its connecting words and its sense. Simplify only as far as your class needs.
See it in iRead: School packs are written by the school's own teachers or content team in iRead's story editor, around the school's curriculum. The same games and quizzes are attached automatically.
See the reading packsKey takeaway
Most curriculum texts can become reading units. Check the level with real pupils, make the smallest change that lets them read alone, and add a short word list and a few questions.
Frequently asked questions
How do you simplify a text for ESL students?
Replace rare words with common ones, split long sentences, and keep every event and connecting word. Add a short explanation where a hard idea matters. Then test the result on a few pupils and revise it.
Is it better to simplify a text or to add explanation?
In the studies available, neither clearly beat the other. Yano, Long and Ross (1994) found no significant difference in comprehension between simplified and elaborated versions. Oh (2001) found elaboration at least as successful, and preferred it because it keeps more of the natural text.
Do simplified texts harm language learning?
Over-simplified ones can. Yano, Long and Ross (1994) point out that simplification may remove words learners need to learn. Crossley, Yang and McNamara (2014) still found that simplified texts were understood better. Simplify to the level of the class, no further.
Can I adapt a passage from our coursebook?
Normally only with permission. A coursebook passage belongs to its publisher or author, and a rewritten version is an adaptation. Rules differ between countries. Ask the publisher, or use texts your own staff wrote.
Sources
- Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189-219. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01100.x
- Oh, S.-Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69-96. doi.org/10.2307/3587860
- Crossley, S. A., Yang, H. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What's so simple about simplified texts? A computational and psycholinguistic investigation of text comprehension and text processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 92-113. doi.org/10.64152/10125/66686
- Hu, M. H.-C., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403-430. doi.org/10.64152/10125/66973
- Claridge, G. (2012). Graded readers: How the publishers make the grade. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(1), 106-119. doi.org/10.64152/10125/66668
- Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179. doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528