Comparative Analysis of Readability and Reading Task Design in Grade 8 English Textbooks Used in Mongolia and China

This study investigates the readability and reading task characteristics of Grade 8 English language textbooks used in Mongolia and China. The study aims to compare textual readability, examine the cognitive and pedagogical characteristics of reading tasks, and identify the relationship between readability and task difficulty. A mixed-method comparative research design integrating quantitative readability analysis and qualitative pedagogical interpretation was employed. Seventeen reading passages selected from the Mongolian Wider World 2e Mongolia 3 textbook and the Chinese Grade 8 English textbook were analyzed using four readability formulas: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, and SMOG Index. Reading tasks were additionally categorized according to task difficulty, task type, and reading stage. Correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between textual complexity and task difficulty.
The findings revealed that both textbooks generally aligned with CEFR-oriented learner expectations; however, important differences emerged regarding linguistic complexity, pedagogical orientation, and cognitive demand. The Mongolian textbook demonstrated relatively greater linguistic complexity and stronger emphasis on communicative interaction and post-reading production, whereas the Chinese textbook prioritized readability accessibility, guided comprehension, and structured cognitive support. Task analysis further indicated that the Mongolian textbook incorporated comparatively more inferential and communicative activities, while the Chinese textbook emphasized medium-level comprehension processing and while-reading support. Correlation analysis demonstrated moderate relationships between readability indicators and task difficulty, suggesting that textbook designers organize pedagogical tasks in relation to linguistic complexity.
The study contributes to EFL textbook evaluation research by integrating readability analysis with cognitive and pedagogical task analysis. The findings highlight the importance of examining readability not as an isolated textual property but as part of a broader pedagogical system involving communicative support, cognitive scaffolding, and learner engagement.

readability, EFL textbooks, reading tasks, cognitive demand, textbook evaluation

1. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732935 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication, 21(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00005-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586613 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chall, J. S. (1988). Readability revisited: The new Dale–Chall readability formula. Brookline Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00142.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Impact Information. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gunning, R. (1968). The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Owu-Ewie, C. (2020). Readability of English language textbooks used in Ghanaian junior high schools. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 9(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.9n.3p.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Patty, W., & Painter, W. (1931). A technique for measuring readability of textbooks. Journal of Educational Research, 24(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1931.10880141 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Pearson Education. (2022). Wider World 2e Mongolia 3. Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667220 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 573–603). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Tanaka-Ishii, K., Tezuka, S., & Terada, H. (2010). Sorting texts by readability. Computational Linguistics, 36(2), 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.07-034-R2-06-90 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Wang, Y. (2021). Readability analysis of secondary school English textbooks in China. Foreign Language Education, 42(3), 87–95. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Zamanian, M., & Heydari, P. (2012). Readability of texts: State of the art. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.1.43-53 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Zhang, B. H. (2022). Comparative readability studies of English textbooks in East Asian contexts. Asian EFL Journal, 26(4), 55–73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Zhou, Y., & Zheng, X. (2020). Vocabulary density and readability in EFL textbooks. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(6), 923–931. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1106.10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. 陈琳. (2022). 《义务教育英语课程标准（2022年版）》解读. 北京师范大学出版社. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. 王蔷. (2021). 初中英语阅读教学中的阅读能力培养研究. 外语教学, 42(3), 87–95. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. 张健. (2020). 英语教材可读性与学习者认知负荷研究. 外语教育研究, 15(2), 41–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. 刘晓华. (2019). 初中英语阅读任务设计分析. 基础外语教育, 21(4), 58–66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Synonymy in the Songs of Ummaru Bagobiri: A Contextual Linguistics Analysis
• Aspect of Compounding and Affixation in Bassa-Nge
• Kinayah (Metonymy) in Malay: An Analysis Based on the Science of Balaghah
• Optimality Theory: Application of Dahl’s law in Kindia
• Selling Diversity: The Politics of Representation in Global Advertising