An evaluation of a Lexiles–based reading management system

Main Article Content

Gloria Shu Mei Chwo


This study reports on a trial use, in independent extensive reading over a three–month period, of an online reading management system, with low proficiency non–native speakers of English (EFL/TESOL) at a Taiwanese university, in order to evaluate its effectiveness in increasing reading proficiency. The system used the controversial Lexile measure, of both text difficulty and reader ability level, to match readers to texts. Data was gathered with the software package’s objective measures of reading proficiency, text comprehension and number and type of texts read, to which the researchers added a reader attitude questionnaire. While student attitudes towards the visual aspects of the system and its wide range of reading topics were favorable, the system was found to lack support for non–native readers who attempt to read more challenging texts and would benefit if it improved how it explains and uses lexile scores. Over the trial period, comprehension on tests that immediately followed reading fell as text difficulty increased over time. Scores on the reading proficiency test provided by the system decreased slightly but significantly, throwing doubt on its validity over short periods of time. In addition to limitations of the system itself, reading improvement was found to be related to the level of texts which students chose to read, but not to how many or their length. The implication is that increased efforts must be made to convince students not to read at a level way below their personal lexile level when improving proficiency is the goal.

Article Details

How to Cite
Chwo, G. S. M. . (2021). An evaluation of a Lexiles–based reading management system. Interdisciplinary Research Review, 16(6), 19–29. Retrieved from
Research Articles


E–Y. Jeon, R. R. Day, The effectiveness of ER on reading proficiency: A meta–analysis, Reading in a Foreign Language 28 (2) (2016) 246–265.

D. Tan Ai Lin, A. Pandian, P. Jaganathan, Encouraging ESL/EFL reading among lower proficiency students at the tertiary level: The use of graded readers, Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal 16 (2) (2016) 20–36.

L–F. Lin, The impact of text difficulty on EFL Learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary learning, Journal of English Language Teaching 2 (2) (2012) 14–24.

U. Wan–a–rom, The effects of control for ability level on EFL reading of graded readers, English Language Teaching 5 (1) (2012) 49–60.

B. Mason, S. Krashen, Extensive reading in English as a foreign language, System 25 (1) (1997) 91–102.

F. M. Hafiz, I. Tudor, Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning, System 18 (1) (1990) 31–42.

J. Liu, J. Zhang, The effects of extensive reading on English vocabulary learning: A meta–analysis, English Language Teaching 11 (6) (2018) 1–15.

J. Poulshock, Extensive graded reading in the liberal arts and sciences, Reading in a Foreign Language 22 (2) (2010) 304–322.

G. Claridge, Graded readers: How the publishers make the grade, Reading in a Foreign Language 4 (1) (2012) 106–19.

V. Rodrigo, Graded readers: Validating reading levels across publishers, Hispania 99 (2016) 66–86.

MetaMetrics, Inc. Lexile–framework–reading, 2020

S. A. Crossley, D. Allen, D. S. McNamara, Text simplification and comprehensible input: A case for an intuitive approach, Language Teaching Research 16 (1) (2012) 89–108.

A. Ellis, A history of children’s reading and literature, Pergamon, UK, 1963.

M. West, The New Method Readers for teaching English reading to foreign children. Longmans, Green and Co, New York ,1930.

M. West, A General Service List of English words. Longman,Harlow, 1953.

E. L. Thorndike, I. Lorge, The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1944.

M. Fernandez–Garc ´ ´ıa, Review of issues in computer–adaptive testing of reading proficiency, Language Learning and Technology 5 (2) (2001) 19–22.

S. A. Crossley, D. B. Allen, D. S. McNamara, Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas, Reading in a Foreign Language 23 (1) (2011) 84–101.

U. Wan–a–rom, Graded reading vocabulary–size tests for placement in extensive reading, Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal 10 (1) (2010) 15–44.

D. Biber, S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, E. Finegan, Longman grammar of spoken and written English, Longman,London, 1999.

P. Meara, H. Bell, P Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short texts, Prospect 16 (3) (2001) 5–19.

P. Meara, T. Fitzpatrick, Lex30: An improved method of assessing productive vocabulary in an L2, System 28 (2000) 19–30. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00058-5

Y. Sawaki, Comparability of conventional and computerized tests of reading in a second language, Language Learning and Technology 5 (2) (2001) 38–59.

L. Huff, Review of netTrekker d.i., Language Learning and Technology 12 (2) (2008) 17–25.

M. Bower, A framework for adaptive learning design in a web–conferencing environment, Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2016 (1, 11) (2016) 1–,2016.

Text Analyser. textanalysis, 2020

D. R. Smith, A. J. Stenner, I. Horabin, M. Smith, The lexile scale in theory and practice, Final Report. MetaMetrics, 1989.

B. R. Blackburn, Best practices for using Lexiles, Popular Measurement 3 (1) (2000) 22–24.

E. H. Hiebert, Beyond single readability measures: Using multiple sources of information in establishing text complexity. Journal of Education 191 (2) (2017) 33–42.

B. Laufer, G. C. Ravenhorst–Kalovski, Lexical threshold revisited, Reading in a Foreign Language 22 (1) (2010) 15–30.

S. Krashen, Second language acquisition and second language learning, Pergamon Press, Oxford/New York, 1981.

M. Chiang, Effects of varying text difficulty levels on second language (L2) reading attitudes and reading comprehension, Journal of Research in Reading 39 (4) (2016) 448–468.

J. P. Lantolf (ed), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000

I. Bakhoda, K. Shabani, Bringing L2 learners’ learning preferences in the mediating process through computerized dynamic assessment, Computer Assisted Language Learning 32 (3) (2019) 210-236. doi.10.1080/09588221.2018.1483950

X. Chen, D. Meurers, Linking text readability and learner proficiency using linguistic complexity feature vector distance, Computer Assisted Language Learning 32 (4) (2019) 418–447. doi.10.1080/09588221.2018.1527358

I. S. Nation, Learning vocabulary in another language, vb vcCambridge University Press, UK, 2001.

Y. Iwahori, Developing reading fluency: A study of extensive reading in EFL, Reading in a Foreign Language 20 (2008) 70–91.

S. Krashen, The Lexile framework: Unnecessary and potentially harmful. California School Library Journal 24 (2) (2001) 25–26.

S. White, J. Clement, Assessing the Lexile framework: Results of a panel meeting, Working Paper No. 2001-08, U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2001.

T. A. Holster, J. W. Lake, W. R. Pellowe, Measuring and predicting graded reader difficulty, Reading in a Foreign Language 29 (2) (2017) 218–244.

J. W. Cunningham, E. H. Hiebert, H.A.Mesmer, Investigating the validity of two widely used quantitative text tools. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 31 (4) (2018) 813–833.

S. M. G. Chwo, Is Web 2.0 pedagogy sustainable and equitable? The example of Livemocha for teaching English as an International Language in Taiwan, Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HungKuang University) 20 (2017) 275–300.

J. A. Vlangas, The Stretch Lexile band: Potential implications for adolescents who struggle with reading, Ph. D. Dissertation, Notre Dame of Maryland University, 2016.

J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, R. R. Cocking, How people learn–brain, mind, experience, and school, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2000.

M. Smith, J. Turner, The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and The Lexile® framework for reading bringing more precision to language learning, MetaMetrics, US, 2020.