Larysa Nikolayeva

DOI Number
First page
Last page


Current research explores the response of Arab undergraduate Business students to text adaptation. The data was collected in Majan University College, Oman, during the academic year 2018 - 2019. Incorporated at the time of developing learning aids, students’ response can serve as one of the tools for enhancing students’ language skills required for their academic success. The analysis is based on the response of two mixed-gender groups of students (23 and 31 students respectively) obtained through a micro test and a text difficulty survey addressing their comprehension skills of authentic versus adapted texts. The effect of the text and sentence length, grammatical complexity, and academic vocabulary on students’ comprehension were considered in the study. The research demonstrates the need for amending the text for Arab students, identifies the areas of concern and helps material designers working in the Arab world to choose the most linguistically and culturally appropriate approaches to text manipulation.


text adaptation, reader response, academic reading, language skills

Full Text:



Berardo, S. A. 2006. “The use of authentic materials in the teaching of reading.” The reading matrix, 6, 2, 60-69.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. 2014. Vocabulary and language teaching. Routledge. London: Longman.

Case, A. 2012. Advantages and disadvantages of using authentic texts in class. [Online] Available from https://www.usingenglish.com/articles/advantages-disadvantages-using-

authentic-texts-in-class.html [Accessed 15 Janury 2018].

Cobb, T. 2018. “Why and how to use frequency lists to learn words.” Lextutor.ca. [Online] Available from https://www.lextutor.ca/research/ [Accessed on 31 December 2018]

Crossley, S.A. and McNamara, D.S. 2016. “Text-based recall and extra-textual generations resulting from simplified and authentic texts.” Reading in a Foreign Language, 28, 1, 1-19.

Crossley, S.A., Yang, H. S., & McNamara, D.S. 2014. “What’s so simple about simplified texts?” Reading in a Foreign Language, April, 26.1, 92-113.

Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. 1949. “The Concept of Readability.” Elementary English 26, 1, 19–26.

Demeni, P. 2012. “Developing written text production competence using the reader-response method”. Acta didactica napocensia, 5, 3, 53-60.

DuBay, W.H. 2004. The Principles of Readability. CA: Costa Mesa. [Online] Available from: http://www. impact-information.com/impactinfo/ readability02.pdf [Accessed on 21 November 2019].

Goodman, K., & Freeman, D. 1993. “What’s simple in simplified language.” In M.L. Tikko (Ed.), Simplification: theory and application. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, 69-81.

Green, A., & Hawkey, R. 2011. “Re-fitting for a different purpose: A case study of item writer practices in adapting source texts for a test of academic reading.” Language Testing, 29.1, 109 –129.

Hervey, S. 2013. “A beginner’s guide to text complexity.” Generation ready. [Online] Available from http://www.generationready.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Beginners-Guide-to-Text-Complexity.pdf [Accessed on 31.12.2018]

Hulstijn, J. H. 1992. “Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning.” In Vocabulary and applied linguistics. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 113-125.

Krashen, S. 1988. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. US: Prentice-Hall International.

Kuimova М. V., Kobzeva N. А. 2011. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Authentic Materials Use in EFL Classrooms.” Молодой ученый 3.2, 125-127. [Online]. Available from https://moluch.ru/archive/26/2844/ [Accessed 11 January 2018].

Long, M., & Ross, S. 1993. “Modifications that preserve language and content.” In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center, 29-52.

Murphy, S. 2013. “Assessing text difficulty for students.” What works? Research into Practice, Research monograph #44, January. [Online]. Available from http://www.edu.

gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/ww_atds.pdf [Accessed on 31.12.2018]

Nikolayeva, L. 2019. “Adapting a text for testing purposes: approach to academic reading and writing assessment design in the Middle East.” Theory and practice in language studies, 9, 2, 204 - 216.

Richards, J. C. 2018. Advantages and disadvantages of using instructional materials in teaching ESL. [Online] Availible from: https://www.professorjackrichards.com/

advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-instructional-materials-in-teaching-esl/ [Accessed 15 January 2018]

Roberts, R. 2014. Authentic or graded? [Online] Availible from: https://elt-resourceful.com/

/02/27/authentic-or-graded-is-there-a-middle-way/ [Accessed 15 January 2018]

Spiegel, D. L. 1998. “Reader response approaches and the growth of readers.” Language arts, 76, 1, 41-48.

Tamor, L. 1981. “Subjective text difficulty: an alternative approach to defining the difficulty level of written text.” Journal of reading behavior, 8, 2, 165 – 172.

Torki, S. 2013. “Algerian University English Language Teaching Materials: How readable are they?” AWEJ, 4, 4, 4-16.

Yoshii, M., & Flaitz, J. 2002. “Second language incidental vocabulary retention: The effect of text and picture annotation types.” CALICO journal, 20, 1, 33-58.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2003283N


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)
ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)