Cover not available
Part of
Digital Social Reading and Second Language Learning and Teaching
Edited by Joshua J. Thoms and Kristen Michelson
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 21] 2024
► pp. 104–127

Chapter 5
Addressing text difficulty in novice L2 digital social reading

| Brigham Young University
| The University of Texas at Austin
| The University of Texas at Austin
Data from L2 digital social reading (DSR) can reveal textual features that increase literary discussion, with text difficulty shown to be a key inhibiting factor. Using DSR, 200 beginning university French students annotated lyrics to six songs of varying difficulty, with words beyond students’ expected proficiency levels glossed in English. No inverse relationship was found between four measures of text difficulty and the use of literary affordances, suggesting that glossing effectively allows beginning French learners to engage in literary discussion of texts through DSR beyond their current proficiency level. Analysis of other textual features leads to recommendations that teachers of beginning L2 learners hoping to maximize literary discussion should prioritize multimedia texts with cultural specificity and should embrace texts of higher difficulty provided that glosses are added as needed.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Affordances in digital social reading
  • Text difficulty in digital social reading
  • Data
  • Methods
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (48)
References
Amerian, M., & Mehri, E. (2014). Scaffolding in sociocultural theory: Definition, steps, features, conditions, tools, and effective considerations. Scientific Journal of Review 3(7), 756–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, E. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. Routledge.Google Scholar
Blyth, C. (2014). Exploring the affordances of digital social reading for L2 literacy: The case of eComma. In J. P. Guikema & L. Williams (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign and second language education (pp. 201–226). Calico.Google Scholar
Carbaugh, B. (2020). The decline of college textbook publishing: Cengage learning and McGraw-Hill. The American Economist, 65(2), 284–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chall, J., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Brookline Books.Google Scholar
Chen, I.-C. J. (2020). Integrating literature circles to facilitate reading comprehension on Facebook groups: Questioning and learning perceptions. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 17(2), 119–146.Google Scholar
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The things you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies (pp. 1–36). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Allen, L., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. (2014). Analyzing discourse processing using a simple natural language processing tool (SiNLP). Discourse Processes, 51, 511–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Skalicky, S., & Dascalu, M. (2019). Moving beyond classic readability formulas: New methods and new models. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(3–4), 541–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Heintz, A., Choi, J. S., Batchelor, J., Karimi, M., & Malatinszky, A. (2022). A large-scaled corpus for assessing text readability. Behavior Research Methods, 55, 491–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darhower, M. (2009). The role of linguistic affordances in telecollaborative chat. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 48–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finlayson, N., Marsden, E., & Anthony, L. (2022). MultilingProfiler (Version 3) [Computer software]. University of York. Retrieved on 10 September 2022 from [URL]Google Scholar
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fulcher, G. (1997). Text difficulty and accessibility: Reading formulae and expert judgement. System, 25(4), 497–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Greenfield, J. (2004). Readability formulas for EFL. JALT Journal, 26, 5–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haberlandt, K., & Graesser, A. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(3), 357–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosseini Alast, S., & Baleghizadeh, S. (2021). The interplay of glossing with text difficulty and comprehension levels. Language Teaching Research, 28(3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, G., Dufon, P., & Hong, F. (1994). L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2 reading passages: Their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 17(1), 19–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “reading”, and “writing” for the 21st Century. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3). 315–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jin, L. (2018). Digital affordances on WeChat: Learning Chinese as a second language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1–2), 27–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung, J. (2016). Effects of glosses on learning of L2 grammar and vocabulary. Language Teaching Research, 20(1), 92–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ko, M. (2012). Glossing and second language vocabulary learning. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 56–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2). 337–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Law, J., Barny, D., & Poulin, R. (2020). Patterns of peer interaction in multimodal L2 digital social reading. Language Learning and Technology, 24(2), 70–85. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, D., & Le Bras, Y. (2009). A frequency dictionary of French: Core vocabulary for learners. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michelson, K., Abdennebi, M., & Michelson, C. (2023). Text-centered “talk” in foreign language classrooms: Comparing the affordances of face-to-face and digital social annotated reading. Foreign Language Annals, 56(3), 600–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, D., & Voss, S. (2011). Reading multimodally: What is afforded? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 75–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ouyang, J., Huang, L., & Jiang, J. (2020). The effects of glossing on incidental vocabulary learning during second language reading: Based on an eye-tracking study. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(4), 496–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pianzola, F., Rebora, S., & Lauer, G. (2020). Wattpad as a resource for literary studies. Quantitative and qualitative examples of the importance of digital social reading and readers’ comments in the margins. PLOS ONE, 15(1), Article e0226708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved on 17 February 2023 from [URL]
Raibe, J., & Denoyelles, A. (2017, October 9). Exploring the use of e-textbooks in higher education: A multiyear study. Educause Review. Retrieved on 6 June 2024 from [URL]Google Scholar
Rama, P., Black, R., van Es, E., & Warschauer, M. (2012) Affordances for second language learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL, 24(3), 322–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 164–201). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, R. (2011). Trends influencing the growth of digital textbooks in US higher education. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 178–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thoms, J., & Poole, F. (2017). Investigating linguistic, literary, and social affordances of L2 collaborative reading. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 139–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Exploring digital literacy practices via L2 social reading. L2 Journal, 10(2), 36–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning and Technology 10(3), 85–101.Google Scholar
Zhu, X., Chen, B., Avadhanam, R., Shui, H., & Zhang, R. (2020). Reading and connecting: Using social annotation in online classes. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 261–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar