Miller identified a problem with academic English preparation (AEP) reading programs not reflecting the types of reading students will do in university settings. He conducted a study comparing the linguistic features of ESL reading textbooks to university textbooks across various disciplines. The results showed statistical differences between the textbooks in vocabulary, nominal modification, readability, and compression features. This suggests ESL textbooks may not adequately prepare students for the language demands of university readings. Miller calls for materials designers to more closely match ESL texts to target university texts, with a particular focus on expanding academic vocabulary.

1. Don Miller
Journal of English for Academic Purposes (2011)

2. Background
 Learners 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

3. Second language textbooks vs.
target language
 Studies 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 textbooks
 Three points raised:
 “Mismatch” between ESL materials and target language
 Must consider what is being compared so we draw relevant
conclusions
 Few studies on ESL reading materials; none on comparison
between advanced level material and target language material

4. 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?

5. Remaining Research
 What are the effects of lexico-grammatical decoding skills
using non-academic texts on development of reading
ability for academic texts:
 Identify differences between the two
 Determine 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?

6. Features Examined
May indicate inappropriate vocab input
Dense packaging of information may
place cognitive demands on reader
May demand more decoding of parts of
words/sentences

7. Corpora Examined
 ESL 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?

8. Corpora Examined
 University Textbook Corpus
 252,100 words (compared to 69,797 in ESL textbooks)
 28 texts from ETS, T2K-SWAL textbook subcorpus
 University Textbook Discipline Subcorpora

9. Analysis
 AWL identified using Vocabprofile, VP English v.2.9
 Word length & sentence length using Mircrosoft Word
readability tool
 All other features using MonoConc Pro 2.0

10. 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?

11. Results-Question 1
 Vocabulary
AWL
ESL Textbooks
Univ. Textbooks
Running Words
4.78%
8.80%
Page of Text (400)
-15 words
+15 words
Range of 570
248-391
Time seen
2.06 -4.23 times
 Compression features—seen more in university textbooks
 Nominal modification—large amount of info in noun phrases
 Noun—noun sequences
 Readability/Compression features
 No difference in sentence length
 Is readability a good indicator of “difficulty”?

12. Results-Macro Discipline (Question 2)
 Differences between reading
textbooks & univ. textbooks
 Differences were similar, but
variation in how pronounced
the differences were
 Compression varied most
with Humanities

13. Conclusions/Implications
 Clear differences between ESL textbooks & university
textbooks
 May 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

14. 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?