UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The validity and applicability of two modified cloze procedures (beginning of the page procedure and.. Parkinson, Dianne 1980-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1981_A8 P37.pdf [ 5.38MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055674.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055674+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055674.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055674+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055674+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055674+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0055674 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0055674.txt
Citation
1.0055674.ris

Full Text

THE  VALIDITY AND  PROCEDURES  APPLICABILITY  (BEGINNING  "INSTANT" BEGINNING  OF  OF  OF  THE  THE  PAGE  TWO PAGE  MODIFIED PROCEDURE  PROCEDURE)  AND FRY READABILITY  PARKINSON  B.A., Simon F r a s e r  University,  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL THE  1971  FULFILLMENT OF  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER  OF ARTS  in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  Department o f E d u c a t i o n (Reading) We a c c e p t  this  thesis  required  THE  as c o n f o r m i n g  to the  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH  ©October,  COLUMBIA  1980  Dianne P a r k i n s o n ,  1980  EQUATED  GRAPH.  By DIANNE  AND  MEASURED  AGAINST THE STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC READING TEST AND WITH THE CLOZE PROCEDURE  CLOZE  In p r e s e n t i n g  this  thesis  in partial  f u l f i l m e n t of the  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that it  freely  the L i b r a r y  a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y .  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e for  University  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  for  financial  shall  of  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  thesis  Columbia  my  It is thesis  n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department  further  be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of this  gain  I  make  copying of t h i s  d e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . understood that  shall  written  ii  The  validity  and  applicability  procedures  (Beginning  "instant"  Beginning  against  the  equated  with  o f two m o d i f i e d  cloze  o f t h e Page P r o c e d u r e and o f t h e Page P r o c e d u r e )  S t a n f ord  Diaqnggtic  the  measured  IReadingTest  and  t h e c l o z e p r o c e d u r e and t h e F r y G r a p h ;  ABSTRACT  the  This  correlational  Page  Procedure  Beginning  of  assessing  study  (B.O.P.P.)  the  Page  readability:  nine  students  study  and t h e i r  examined t h e B e g i n n i n g and  the  Procedure  One  as  hundred  scores  on  the  "instant"  measures  ninety^-six  (106 male and 90 f e m a l e )  took  cloze  of  for grade  part i nthe  procedure,  the  B-O-P.P. and t h e " i n s t a n t " B.O.P-P. were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the  StanfordDiagnostic  (hereafter  referred  Reading  to  as  T e s t Form  the Stanford  The  Stanford  D i a g n o s t i c was u s e d  the  students  were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d  groups;  Analyses  included  associated  with  the S t a n f o r d  subgroup,  and  analysis  within  each  subgroup.  which  estimates  given  cloze  B.O.P.P. s c o r e ;  the  of  Using  the  and  to each o f the t h r e e calculation  Diagnostic scores the variance  Stanford  Level  Diagnostic ) .  as t h e anchor t e s t  An e q u i v a l e n c y  procedure,  A - Blue  o f means for  between  table i s  Diagnostic  the StanfordDiagnostic  sexes  provided  scores  B.O.P.P. o r  each  fora  "instant" grade  iii  score the  equivalent  readability  This  was  estimated  t o 40 p e r c e n t  level  then  of  the  compared  to  the  the  Stanford  Diagnostic suggesting  of  students'  Similarly  B.O.P.P. and  determined.  readability  the F r y  "instant"  ability Graph  both  level  and  the  a r e good  A l l results^  p a s s a g e s t u d i e d and s h o u l d  found  indicators  the given  passage.  Stanford Diagnostic,  on t h e c l o z e  t h e p a s s a g e s t o be a t v i r t u a l l y  difficulty.  were  B.O.P.P. w i t h t h e  t o handle  s c o r e e q u a l t o 40 p e r c e n t  found  was  c o r r e l a t i o n s o f .53 and .67  between  grade  passage  procedure,  by t h e F r y G r a p h .  Respective  the  on t h e c l o z e  procedure,  t h e same l e v e l  however, were l i m i t e d n o t be g e n e r a l i z e d  of  to the  to  other  materials. When  a  significant female  significance difference  performance  administered .  level  was f o u n d levels  of  .05  between on  any  was the of  used male  the  no and  tests  iv  Table of Contents  CHAPTER I THE  PROBLEM  Rationale  f o r the Study  -  Objectives  o f the Study  Definition  o f Terms Used  Research Basic  Questions  1 6  . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .  11  Assumptions  Limitations  12  o f t h e Study  Organization  7  14  o f t h e Remainder o f t h e  Study  15  Chapter I I REVIEW  OF THE LITERATURE  Readability Lorge  Formulas  readability  Flesch  SMOG r e a d a b i l i t y  17  formula  readability  Readability  Bormuth  formula  readability  Dale-Chall Fry  16  ...........  formula  Graph formula  readability  Cautions concerning  .....—  formula  ..........  22 23  readability 24  Cloze Procedure Structure  20 21  formulas The  18  of cloze  26 procedure  passages  30  V  Passage l e n g t h  32  P r e - c l o z e versus post-cloze  33  Space l e n g t h  34  Selecting a representative  passage . . .  35  S c o r i n g methods Cloze procedure readability tests  36 tests  validated  formulas,  multiple-choice  and s t a n d a r d i z e d  Frame o f r e f e r e n c e  for  against  tests  cloze  38  procedure  scores  44  Criticisms  of the c l o z e  Modifications Chapter  procedure  ....  on t h e c l o z e p r o c e d u r e  46  .  49  III  A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY S e l e c t i o n of Procedures Stanford  Subjects  for  52  A d m i n i s t e r i n g and S c o r i n g  the  D i a g n o s t i c Reading Test  53  Procedures  for  Selecting  the Passage  54  Procedures  for  Constructing, Administering  and M a r k i n g t h e C l o z e P r o c e d u r e Procedures  54  for Constructing, Administering  and M a r k i n g t h e B e g i n n i n g o f  the  Page  Procedure Procedures  56  fcr Constructing, Administering  and M a r k i n g t h e " I n s t a n t " Page P r o c e d u r e  Beginning of  the 57  vi  Analysis  o f t h e Data  58  Figures  61  C h a p t e r IV ANALYSIS OF DATA, SUMMARY, C0NCLDSI0N5 AND IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER  STUDY  Research Question . . i i  79  Tests of Research Questions  80  Tables  82  Summary  94  Discussion  96  C o n c l u s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s  .........  98  Recommendations f o r F u t u r e S t u d y  .........  99  Bibliography:  101  Appendix: A.  Lorge R e a d a b i l i t y  B.  Flesch  R e a d a b i l i t y Formula  C.  Flesch  Reading Ease  D.  Dale-Chall  Ei  Fry Readability  F.  SMOG R e a d a b i l i t y  Gi  Cloze Procedure Test  128  H.  B e g i n n i n g o f t h e Page P r o c e d u r e  129  I.  "Instant" Procedure  Formula  119 .  Formula  Readability  Formula  Graph Formula  Eeginning  120 121 i . i . . .  123 125 126  o f t h e Page 130  vii  List  of Tables: I.  Mean and S t a n d a r d Diagnostic  Deviation  Scores f o r Groups C l o z e  B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " II.  Mean and S t a n d a r d Stanford Female  III.  V.  B.O.P.P  82  Deviation of  Diagnostic  S c o r e s f o r Male and  —  83  Effects  o f Sex on  Stanford  Diagnostic  Mean S c o r e s f o r t h e T o t a l  Population  and G r o u p s C l o z e  "Instant"  Distribution  by Sex  85  Deviation f o r  Scores f o r Groups C l o z e  and M a r g i n a l  Diagnostic  B.O.P.P. 84  of Subjects  B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " Cell  Procedure,  B.O.P.P.  Mean and S t a n d a r d Percent  VI.  Procedure,  Populations  Anova  and IV.  of Stanford  Procedure,  B.O.P.P. . . . . . . .  Means f o r t h e S t a n f o r d  Raw S c o r e s ,  B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t "  and C l o z e B.O.P.P.  Procedure, Percent  Scores VII.  87  Summary o f Anova Stanford Cloze  Effects  Diagnostic  Procedure,  B.O.P.P. P e r c e n t VIII.  86  Estimated  Raw  Scores*  and  B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " Scores  88  Instructional  Equivalencies  o f Sex on  Range  f o r Groups C l o z e  B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t "  B.O.P.P  Procedure, 89  viii  IX.  Estimated Procedure,  Equivalency  Table f o r Cloze  B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t "  Scores as P r e d i c t e d  from  Stanford  B.O.P.P. Diagnostic  Raw S c o r e s X. XI.  90  Intercorrelations of Variables  91  Significance of Correlations of a l l Variables  XII.  ......  92  Grade E q u i v a l e n t s Diagnostic  Corresponding  Raw S c o r e s  t o Stanford 93  ix  L i s t o f Figures,: Figure 1.  S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Haw for  2.  the Total  Population  S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw for  3.  t h e Subgroup  4.  t h e Subgroup  5.  t h e Subgroup  Percent Cloze  Scores  Percent  7.  Percent Scores "Instant"  9.  Scores 65 Scores  '.'Instant" B.O.P.P.  ...  69 f o r t h e Group B . O i P . P .  71  f o r t h e Group ..  o f C l o z e Procedure  o f B.O.P.P.  73  Percent  Scores  Percent  S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw  Scattergram  67  f o r t h e Group  S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw  Scores  63  B.O.P.P  Scattergram and  10.  Scores  Scattergram and  .  Procedure  6.  8.  Scores  B.O.P.P  S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw for  61  Cloze Procedure  S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw for  Scores  ....  75  Scores  Scores  o f " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P.  ....  76  Percent  and S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw  Scores 11.  Scores  77  Predicted Procedure  R e g r e s s i o n L i n e s f o r Groups C l o z e  B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. 78  1  I  CHAPTER  The., Problem  R a t i o n a l e f o r the Study One  wishes that he might more f r e q u e n t l y  on  the  secondary  level  various instructional  materials  units  in  find  for  the  the  content  areas on l e v e l s e a s i e r and more d i f f i c u l t those  commonly  used  for  the  grade  than  level.  M a t e r i a l s o f t h i s type are a must i f the  high  s c h o o l teacher i s to b u i l d h i s program on what he  knows  of the way  young people grow - some  slower, others much f a s t e r f o r the grade. Each  day  than  (Bormuth 1967,  students  the  average  p.291)  face the f r u s t r a t i o n  m a t e r i a l s assigned to them t h a t they cannot Educators determine student.  are  faced  with  the  problem  what m a t e r i a l s are s u i t a b l e f o r The  trend  has  been  to  comprehend. of a  trying  to  particular  develop  simple and f a s t techniques f o r determining  of having  relatively  the  reading  l e v e l of the given m a t e r i a l , the r e a d i n g c a p a c i t y of the student  and  the  material.  The  with  reading  the  student's  matching of  ability a  to d e a l with t h a t  student's  reading  level  l e v e l of a s s i g n e d readings i s c a l l e d  2  readability. have  Techniques  developed  readability  in  procedure;  likely  the  it  is  least  time  degree of  student  influenced the  not  tests  of  at  the  and  the  cautioned  (p. 37).  degree  on  only  informal  and  the  informal inventory i s (1968)  suggested,  requires a relatively  p a r t of the t e a c h e r . t h a t " In  reading  the passages read, questions  This c r i t i c i s m  standardized  t h a t have not  inventory  the  high  Pennock,  tests  where  t o answer q u e s t i o n s , h i s s c o r e i s  by  the  readability  directions:  f o r as Bormuth  i s asked  quality  them"  used  basic  these  consuming  (1973) f u r t h e r the  the Of  training  determining  three  formula,  cloze  for  and may  tests  been  but  also  by  h i s comprehension be  but  subjected  leveled  to  of  some  more i m p o r t a n t l y  at  to  of  the  rigors  standardization; For  the  average  classroom  formula  i n c o n j u n c t i o n with  cloze  procedure  expedient with  solution  and  time  scoring  to  t o the  problem  of p r o v i d i n g  provide  reading  formula  traced  to  in  the  from its  or  the  the  most  students  level. its  complex  present  review  The  quick  of  the  II.  a variety  c l o z e procedure*  own  beginning,  is  chapter  Although the  appear  consuming  literature,  readability  would  readability  formulas  a  a standardized test  reading m a t e r i a l s at t h e i r  emergence o f t h e  teacher  o f u s e s have been d e v e l o p e d  little  has  been done t o  for  streamline  3  it  when  used  as a r e a d a b i l i t y measure.  Educators are  still  r e q u i r e d to s e l e c t a book, type s i x to twelve  word  passages, have students f i l l  i n the deleted words,  determine the mean score on each o f all  the  means  together  passages administered.  and  the  divide  passages,  T h i s r e s u l t s i n a score which i s closest  t h i s score i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the  booki  Granted t h i s process need be done only  book but as Pennock teachers  have  difficulty  the  time  and  facilities  of each book" (p. 38) .  a r e a d i n g c o o r d i n a t o r might proposes  procedure  an  sampling  once  per  (1973 ) suggests, " ...few classroom  procedure t e s t production as a means  also  add  by the number o f  the mean of means and the passage with the mean to  250  of  for  cloze  assessing  the  He does suggest t h a t  construct  such  tests  and  a l t e r n a t i v e to the t r a d i t i o n a l process.  (see  Chapter  cloze 2  M o d i f i c a t i o n s on the Cloze Procedure^) McCabe  (1979)  has  proposed a process which  d r a s t i c a l l y cut the time r e g u i r e d f o r procedure^ of  the  He c a l l s h i s p r o p o s a l B;0;P.P.  the  Page  Procedure".  whole  Following  passage  onto a d i t t o master^  of paper, which i s  type an  McCabe s 1  intact  Second, a s t r i p  approximately  six  cloze  - "Beginning  instructions; ...the teacher must f i r s t  could  inches  4  long  (15cm)  and  cut  from a p l a i n  of  paper  is  ditto  master*  from  the  1/2  inch  piece  then  of  (1.25  paper.  taped  hand  one  the  (2.5  cm)  stencil  is  machine  and  copies  (p. 199)  An  interesting  of the  B.O.P.P. a r e aspect  of  w e l l as  are  to f i l l  missing  asked  words.  They  in  may  a l s o be  o f words which do these  with  proposed  all  not  they  reader's  that  broader s t r i p s  a t t e n t i o n on  the  strip  words  or  Readers parts out  and  cloze  may  be  of  parts  replace  i s appropriate.  the  the  McCabe  procedure  used t o  by  focus  the  l a r g e r segments o f i n f o r m a t i o n  or  of p a p e r be  Page P r o c e d u r e " ,  whole words.  appropriate  feel  f u r t h e r v a r i a t i o n s on  suggesting  B.O.P;P. i s  i n s t r u c t e d to cross  appear  something  made".  the  o f p a r t words a s  the  The  of  then i n s e r t e d i n t o a D i t t o r e p r o d u c i n g  deletion  that  strip  back  inch  margin;  wide, i s  This  to the  approximately  left  era)  moved t o c r e a t e a  M.O.P.P.  o r an  "End  "Middle  of  the  of  Page  P r o c e d u r e , " E.O.P.P . The focus less by  on  major an  thrust  abbreviated  t i m e c o n s u m i n g and the  suggest  classroom that, an  placing  a  one  from  inch  o f McCabe's p r o p o s a l cloze  procedure;  therefore  teacher.  the  of left  paper  McCabe  (15  cm  one  more l i k e l y  be  l o n g and  hand m a r g i n o f  that t o be  goes s o  " i n s t a n t B.O.P.P." c o u l d  strip  appears  any  is used  f a r as  created 2.5  cm  book.  to  to by  wide) That  5  page  could  t h e n be p h o t o c o p i e d  t o p r o d u c e an " i n s t a n t "  B.O.P.P., which r e q u i r e s no t y p i n g . If  field  results  as v a l i d  word  procedure  then  formula  with  discussed  Chapter I I .  He  determining  a  reading  as those  deleted,  readability  the  McCabe's  proposal  This  of the c l o z e procedure, he  has  created  the  also  student's  review  created ability  and a t e c h n i q u e  results  a  quick  to deal  the  procedure, every  was s c r e e n e d  High*  "instant"  correlation  level,  of  the given usable  by  the  validity  using  fifth  test; the  of  compared  the with  word d e l e t e d , and t h e  The p a s s a g e used Fry  Readability  i nthe Graph.  were a random s e l e c t i o n o f g r a d e 9 s t u d e n t s i n  Junior  section  step  means  with  more r e a d i l y  investigated  of a standardized  Subjects one  one  teacher.  study  cloze  a  every  of the l i t e r a t u r e .  B.O.P.P. and t h e " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. when  study  the  a l l the advantages o f the c l o z e  in  has  material  classroom  the  prove  o f t h e B.C.P.P. and t h e " i n s t a n t " BiO.P.P. t o be  egually nth  s t u d i e s on  of  of  The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e B.O.P.P. were their  the  results  Stanford  Form A { h e r e a f t e r ,  measured with  Diagnostic  B.O.P.P. and  i n terms o f t h e  the  comprehension  Reading  StanfordDiagnostic  Test, ).  Blue  6  Objectives The  o f t h e Study  major o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s  following 1) How  Page  Procedure of the  Diagnostic  (B.0.P.P.)and  Page  Procedure  the  to  the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  the  c l o z e procedure e q u i v a l e n t  the  B.O.P.P. and t h e " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P?  the  the  Fry  Are  of  Stanford  percent  the  cloze  B.O.P.P?  Stanford  level  o f 40 - 59 p e r c e n t  Readability the given  Diagnostic  using  t o t h e same s c o r e s  Graph  estimate  on  the  p a s s a g e t o be t h e same a s grade  equivalent  for  40  on t h e c l o z e p r o c e d u r e ? performance  statistically the  "instant"  the  Is  Does  of  ?  readability  4)  the  guestions.  Beginning  3)  i s t o answer  r e l a t e d are the c l o z e procedure, the Beginning  the  2)  study  different  procedure,  levels on t h e  of  males and f e m a l e s  Stanford  Diagnostic,  t h e B.O.P.P. o r t h e " i n s t a n t "  7  D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Osed  B.O.P.P.  —  Beginning  procedure  that  of  the  Page  Procedure.  i n s t r u c t s the teacher  t o type  an i n t a c t passage onto a d i t t o master. s t r i p of paper  approximately  (15 cm)  1/2  and  attached  from  the  or  i s then  run  The  only  parts.  copies  deletions  B.O.P.P. i n c l u d e whole words reader  and  on  the  part  words i n the  F o r the purpose of t h i s  I t was  a  of t h e  i s i n s t r u c t e d to f i l l  correct.  be  in  responses that e x a c t l y matched  were considered  No p a r t  stencil  machine to c r e a t e  is inch  should  reproducing  missing  one  sentence  The  the  ditto,  last  covered.  and  long  wide  the l e f t - h a n d margin.  first  B.O.P.P.  Next a  inches  (1^25 cm)  t o the back of the  (2.5 cm) of  inch  6  A  study  deletions  also  noted  that a 1/2 inch d e l e t i o n on a page typed on an average  typewriter,  was  spaces on the typed l i n e  " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. B.O.P.P.  —  this  egual t o 1/10th the (see appendix H).  procedure  is  but r e q u i r e s no t y p i n g ^  of paper i s placed over a page i n other  printed  material  like  the  The s t r i p a  book  or  making sure t o leave  8  the  first  and l a s t sentence i n t a c t .  is  then  photocopied  number of c o p i e s .  to  For  The  page  produce t h e d e s i r e d  the  purpose  of  this  study the reader's responses once again had t o exactly  match  correct.  the d e l e t i o n s to be counted as  The width of the s t r i p o f paper  was  considered t o be equal t o 1/10th t h e number,of spaces  on  a  full  line  i n the  m a t e r i a l being s t u d i e d and not suggested  by  McCabe*s account  McCabe.  proposal  the v a r i e t y  printed materials  Spaces  on a l i n e — given  this  line*  the  the  1/2  This  modification to  made  to  take  into  (see appendix I) .  a l l letters  a l l punctuation  on  a  and a l l spaces  A f u l l l i n e i s one which  left  inch  i n s i z e o f type found i n  includes  between words. from  was  particular  goes  hand margin to the r i g h t hand  margin*  C l o z e Procedure —  a passage of at l e a s t  chosen. intact  The f i r s t  250  words i s  and l a s t sentence are l e f t  and every f i f t h word i s d e l e t e d i n the  remainder  of  the  passage up t o a maximum of  fifty  deletions.  The d e l e t i o n s  are  replaced  with  blanks of standard l e n g t h and t h e reader  9  is  i n s t r u c t e d to  exact  word t h a t has  replications total to  Stanford  Diagnostic  study  grades  only  Readability  that  —  Graph  between  a  frustration  reading  can  without  any  considered on  b a s e d on  m u l t i p l i e d by  two  Blue L e v e l ,  9  the  section  of  A guick  — of  12  and  in  purpose of  this  form  A  which  administered.  scoring  a reading  Form A  abilities  through  readability  score  somewhere  instructional  and  leveli  — read  The  level  and  assistance: to  be  m a t e r i a l at  This  eguivalent  level  the  —  at  which  understand  a multiple-choice  reading  exact  score.  student's  level  person  Only  the  The  For  yields  with  scored.  t o c o m p r e h e n s i o n was  measure t h a t  Instructional  words a r e  measure r e a d i n g  colleges.  pertained  score  to  in  community  Independent  deleted  percentage  designed  blank  been d e l e t e d .  Beading T e s t ,  students  Fry  of  i n the  c o r r e c t responses are  give the  is  fill  material  is  usually  t o a 90  percent  comprehension  same  The  a  test  level*  level  at which  a  10  person the  can  aid  of  considered score  Frustration  on  and  an  understand  equivalent  This  to  a  level  —  i s unable to  The  75  read the  and  of  less  choice  test;  than  50  get  a i d of  i s usually considered  score  level  percent  t o be  percent  a  from  instructor. equal  on  test.  at which  meaning an  with  i s usually  a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e comprehension  p a s s a g e even w i t h  This  material  instructor.  t o be  reading  person a  read  to  a  a multiple-  Research  Questions  1. . H i l l  the c l o z e procedure, the Beginning of the  Procedure  and  the  Page  " i n s t a n t " Beginning o f the Page  Procedure be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the S t a n f o r d Diagnostic ?  2.  Are the s c o r e s y i e l d e d by the c l o z e Beginning  of  the  procedure,  the  Page Procedure and t h e " i n s t a n t "  Beginning of the Page Procedure e q u i v a l e n t ?  3.  What i s the d i f f e r e n c e between the Fry readability  for  the  passage  and  D i a g n o s t i c grade e q u i v a l e n t f o r 40 cloze  4.  Is  estimate  of  the S t a n f o r d  percent  on. the  procedure?  there  performance  a  significant  levels  Stanf ord D i a g n o s t i c  of r  difference  males the  and  cloze  B.O.P.P. or the " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P?  between  females  the  on the  procedure,  the  12  Basic  Assumptions For  the  purpose  of  this  study  the  following  assumptions were made*  1.  The Stanford D i a g n o s t i c ^ c o n s t i t u t e d a v a l i d of  measure  a student's reading achievement or reading grade  l e v e l when one and a h a l f years was s u b t r a c t e d the  reading  grade score to determine t h e student's  i n s t r u c t i o n a l reading l e v e l .  2.  The  Fry Readability  indication  of  the  (Burmeister, 1974)  Graph  cloze  gave  a  procedure  reasonable  passage being  s t u d i e d when one and a h a l f years was added calculated  from  score  in  order  which t h e m a t e r i a l c o u l d be  to the  to o b t a i n the l e v e l a t used  for  instruction,  (see pg. 97)  3.  The the  s t u d e n t s ' responses cloze  B.O.P.P.)  procedure, represented  to the passages  (including  B.O.P.P. and  "instant"  an honest  attempt t o r e p l a c e  the d e l e t e d word, words or p a r t s of words.  4.  The c l o z e t e s t s s e l e c t e d were equal i n d i f f i c u l t y t o any  other c l o z e t e s t s that c o u l d have been made over  the same passage*  13  5.  The  subjects  three,  selected  represented  the  f o r t r e a t m e n t s one, same  population.  two*  and  14  L i m i t a t i o n s of_the  1.  Only study  one  Study  form of each c l o z e t e s t was  and one cannot be sure t h a t  chosen test  were that  the  equal i n d i f f i c u l t y could  have  been  used f o r the cloze  to any  made  over  tests  other  cloze  the  same  passage.  2.  The  p o p u l a t i o n s t u d i e d was  body  in  one  school  in  l i m i t e d to the grade nine a  suburban  middle c l a s s  district.  3.  The  three treatments were given to  groups of  ( assumed to be equal) and  each treatment was  not  have been had a l l three each  subject;  This  three  as such the  treatments research,  was  4.  interruptions,  effect  so comparable as i t might been  only  given  however, r e l i e d  i n t e r r u p t i n g other teacher's c l a s s e s further  different  one  and  to  to on  avoid  form of each t e s t  administered*  The  grade e q u i v a l e n t f o r students  end  of the  graduate  Stanford D i a g n o s t i c level.  This  s c o r i n g at the was  designated  top as  d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h between  the d i f f e r e n t scores w i t h i n t h i s range.  1  Organization  of_the  Remainder cf the  Study  Chapter I I presents a review of the most used r e a d a b i l i t y formulas and to  these formulas.  The  the  literature  and  pertaining  as  as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the c l o z e  which i s the major t h r u s t of the chapter. the r e s e a r c h  dealing  frequently  s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter  with r e a d a b i l i t y formulas i s designed only overview  A  dealing a  brief  procedure review  with c l o z e procedure i s t r a c e d  of from  the e a r l i e s t attempts to v a l i d a t e the c l o z e procedure its  present  p o s i t i o n as a v a l i d and  f o r both r e s e a r c h e r s  including:  procedures  and p r a c t i t i o n e r s .  achievement; cloze  of  the  is and  the  Beginning of the  the  of  the  students'  applied,  and  marking of the c l o z e Page  Procedure  Page Procedure.  analysis  the  of  data  The  and  the  subjects, reading  s e l e c t i o n of the passage t o which  procedure  Beginning  selection  measuring  the  administration  and  the  for  to  u s e f u l measurement  Chapter I I I provides a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of study  5  the  construction procedure, the  research  the  "instant" guestions  are a l s o presented i n t h i s  chapter; Chapter IV presents a n a l y s i s and research  guestions^  f o r f u t u r e study are References chapter  IV.  and  The also  d i s c u s s i o n of  conclusions included  in  and  the  implications  this  chapter.  appendices are l o c a t e d immediately a f t e r  16  CHAPTER I I  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  Readability The widely,  Formulas  r e a d a b i l i t y formula i f not  the  appears  most  assessing r e a d a b i l i t y .  wisely  Burmeister  to used  that  a  to m a t e r i a l s a t t h e i r  frustration to  two  b)  that  requiring  that  silent grade  were  level  grades  choose  material  (1973) who  a  tests  tended  to  t o drop  one  from the t e s t r e s u l t s i n order t o level.  The need t o i d e n t i f y reading l e v e l s  Galloway  that  reading  l e v e l and that i t was necessary  and  a  equal t o t h e students'  determine the s t u d e n t s ' i n s t r u c t i o n a l  students  of  level.  cautioned  scores  full  use  I d e a l l y , students were then matched  a d m i n i s t e r e d above the primary grade  the  that  be a p p l i e d t o determine the l e v e l of  the given m a t e r i a l ;  yield  technique f o r  t e s t be administered t o e s t a b l i s h  the s t u d e n t s ' reading l e v e l , and  Burmeister  most  was a two step process* a) r e q u i r i n g  standardized  r e a d a b i l i t y formula  the  (1974) suggested  the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f r e a d a b i l i t y through r e a d a b i l i t y formula  be  was  pointed  t e x t s based on content  emphasized out  that  f o r both in  the  a study by  teachers  often  and judge the r e a d a b i l i t y  17  of the t e x t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r own reading a b i l i t y and their familiarity  with  the  subject.  She  cited  the  example of one Toronto high s c h o o l where a l l text books, except  one,  were  found  to  be  too d i f f i c u l t f o r non  c o l l e g e bound s t u d e n t s . Teacher time i s an important f a c t o r i n the d e c i s i o n to use a formula* application formula  as  were  Klafe well  the  (1963) suggested that speed  of  as the p r e d i c t i v e accuracy o f the characteristics  c o n s i d e r e d by users of formulas.  most  freguently  To date t h e r e are w e l l  over t h i r t y r e a d a b i l i t y formulas a v a i l a b l e f o r use, many of which c o n t a i n extended  c a l c u l a t i o n s which may r e q u i r e  manual a i d s or even computors. readily  available  formulas  were  considered  by  not  to  the  As these d e v i c e s are not classroom  considered*  the  literature  Only to  teachers those  be  such  measures  both  guickly  a d m i n i s t e r e d and r e l a t i v e l y a c c u r a t e were i n c l u d e d .  Lorge_geadability_Formula One  of the e a r l y formulas t o r e c e i v e wide  developed  by I r v i n g Lorge i n 1939.  use  was  Lorge was the f i r s t  of many t o use the McCall Crabbs Test Lessons  i n Reading  ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as McCall Crabbs Test Lessons) as a criterion to  the  f o r h i s study.  McCall  By c o r r e l a t i n g  Crabbs passages  h i s formula  (which had already been  18  graded), he was which  able t o develop a t h r e e  computed  average  sentence  p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases per number  length,  average  the  formula  number  100 words and a count  of hard words not on the Dale l i s t  T h i s formula gave  the  factor  grade  placement  of  of  of 769 value  the  words. of  the  r e a d i n g a b i l i t y r e q u i r e d to answer 75 percent of  t e s t questions c o r r e c t l y  (Klare, 1963).  l a t e r the o r i g i n a l formula was placement  was  ..changed  to  Some years  c o r r e c t e d and  correspond  the  to  grade  50  percent  (1948) c r i t i c i z e d the Lorge  formula  comprehension of t e s t q u e s t i o n s . Dale and C h a l l saying  that  the  769  easy  words  list  d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the higher l e v e l s of (see  appendix  Flesch  formula was  the next major  F l e s c h developed  McCall  Crabbs  Unlike  skillful  publicity  brought areas  gaining  was  correlated  lorge, for  Flesch his  was  mass  communication.  e a r l i e r formulas r e l a t e d  to  what  Flesch's he  felt  very  formula  a t t e n t i o n to the concept of r e a d a b i l i t y t o of  simple  Test l e s s o n s u s i n g a 50 percent  comprehension l e v e l . in  readability  a relatively  and a c c u r a t e t h r e e f a c t o r formula which the  difficulties  Formula  measure to appear*  to  not  A) .  Flesch Readability The  did  and most  criticism was  of  their  19  failure  to  materials* the  provide  He f e l t  expense  of  a  formula  suitable  that they emphasized  other  factors  and  vocabulary  paid  a t t e n t i o n to/the r o l e of a b s t r a c t words difficulty. length,  The  number  references  of  formula  affixes  (see appendix  Dale and C h a l l saying  Flesch  that  and  in  number  personal  difficulty reader.  at  little  determining sentence  of  personal  B) .  count  the F l e s c h formula  affixes  t h e r e f o r e don't count the same number. that  too  calculated  (1948) c r i t i c i z e d  people  f o r adult  references  differently  and  They  felt  also  c o u l d not be s u b t r a c t e d from  i f those r e f e r e n c e s were not f a m i l i a r to t h e In  that  same year F l e s c h r e v i s e d  h i s formula  h a v i n g found the count of a f f i x e s too time consuming and the count of p e r s o n a l r e f e r e n c e s m i s l e a d i n g . was  two new formulas s t i l l  Crabbs  Test  Lessons.  based  These  formula and the Human I n t e r e s t suggested  that  the  Human  were  (see appendix  the the  formula.  Interest  popular with u s e r s but the Reading widely used  on  C) .  Ease  The r e s u l t 1925  Reading Klare  formula formula  McCall Ease (1963)  was not became  20  Dale  - Chall In  which  1948  D a l e and  (along  quickly  with  became  Dale-Chall as  Readability  had  attain  a  length list  one  grade on  of  the  Their  t h e number  to  the  formula)  Test  The  Lessons  aim  50  passages.  factors,  formula  formulas.  McCall Crabbs  equivalent  two  Ease  most used  formulas.  own  was  to  percent  The  average  formula sentence  o f words o u t s i d e t h e  Dale  o f 3,000. Dale  list  s t u d e n t s on  considered placed  known by  on t h e l i s t (1975)  was  tested  against  and  found Chall  to  was  constructed after testing  t h e i r .knowledge o f  Klare  and  the  their  Reading  o f t h e two  each  of o n l y  produced  Flesch  score  i n words and  The four  the  aforementioned  comprehension consisted  Chall  f o r m u l a used  the  Formula  80  percent  of f a m i l i a r  1925  correlate  on  H e a l t h and -  .92  subjects  the D a l e - C h a l l  M c C a l l Crabbs  that Social was  Words were  words.  correlation  of  of  teachers i n the f i e l d  expert  .90  the  a t t h e 70  (1948) r e p o r t e d  validated  10,000 words.  of  reported that the  grade  Test  formula Lessons  percent l e v e l .  the  formula  Dale  was  also  S t u d i e s m a t e r i a l s and  found  with and  the  a  judgements  with a c t u a l  reader  comprehension. In the  1958  Flesch  P l o w e r s , Sumner and  and  McCall Crabbs  the D a l e - C h a l l Test Lessons.  Klare recalculated  f o r m u l a s based They f o u n d  that  on t h e the  both 1950  Flesch  21  Reading  Ease  formula  the 1950 McCall correlated  at  c o r r e l a t e d at the .64 l e v e l with  Crabbs  Test  Lessons  while  they  had  the .70 l e v e l with the 1925 s c o r e s ;  The  Dale - C h a l l formula had a c o r r e l a t i o n of .71 1950  scores  virtually  the  c o r r e l a t i o n with the 1925 s c o r e s .  As a  consistency suggested formula  which  in  is  the  to  c o r r e c t e d grade  the  same as the .70 result  of the  Dale - C h a l l formula, K l a r e (1963)  that i t was the most a c c u r a t e up  with  1960  (see appendix  general-purpose  D f o r formulas and  levels).  Fry R e a d a b i l i t y Graph The F r y R e a d a b i l i t y Graph f i r s t Fry's and  Graph words  entered  per  sentence.  These  two  variables  on the graph and the r e a d a b i l i t y  Vaughan  in  1965.  had two v a r i a b l e s , s y l l a b l e s per 100 words  read d i r e c t l y from the graph.  found  appeared  Pauk  were  score was then  (1969)  and  later  (1976), i n a study at the U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a , that  agreed reported  Dale  within that  -  one  Chall grade  and F r y s c o r e s c o n s i s t e n t l y level.  Klare  (1975)  also  the F r y Graph had been v a l i d a t e d on both  primary and secondary m a t e r i a l s and the s c o r e s read from t h i s graph had c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y with s e v e r a l w e l l known formulas  (see appendix  E f o r graph).  22  SMOG R e a d a b i l i t y McLaughlin formula valid  (1969) p u b l i s h e d  h i s SMOG  earlier  was  methods.  McLaughlin  (polysyllable  count)  formula operates on longer  words  within  30  the premise  are usually  more  longer  grammatical  sentences  syllables  sentences.  The SMOG  a)  in  English  p r e c i s e and t h e r e f o r e  usually  their  full  meaning,  have a more complex retain  s e v e r a l p a r t s t o understand the whole(McLaughlin,  1969).  SMOG  and  His formula  has t o  The  structure  that  more  that  e x t r a e f f o r t i s needed t o i d e n t i f y b)  stated  no need t o count a l l s y l l a b l e s ;  counted the number of words of t h r e e or  and  readability  which he b e l i e v e d was s i m p l e r , q u i c k e r and more  than  there  Formula  formula,  the reader  like  the m a j o r i t y of formulas  c o n s i d e r e d here, was v a l i d a t e d a g a i n s t the McCall Test Lessons but i n s t e a d o f u s i n g the 50 criteria  used  -  75  Crabbs percent  by p r e v i o u s formulas, McLaughlin used the  100 percent c r i t e r i o n and t h e r e f o r e found m a t e r i a l t o be one  and a h a l f t o two grades h i g h e r than other formulas.  The  McLaughlin formula determines t h e independent  of  the m a t e r i a l ,  the f r u s t r a t i o n For  whereas t h e other formulas  to i n s t r u c t i o n a l  l e v e l of the  level  determine material.  example: i f the Dale - C h a l l formula f i n d s a book t o  be a t t h e grade 4 l e v e l , using the 50 percent c r i t e r i o n , the  book w i l l be near the f r u s t r a t i o n  level for a child  r e a d i n g at the grade 4 l e v e l even i f he/she has t e a c h e r  23  assistance.  The  McLaughlin  formula i s l i k e l y t o f i n d  the same book t o be at the grade student without  at  that  level  6  could  level  f o r only  understand  a  the material  teacher a s s i s t a n c e .  The  standard e r r o r  slightly  on  is  SMOG  1.5  grades,  higher than f o r other formulas, but McLaughlin  f e e l s t h a t the grade l e v e l formulas  the  corrections  make h i s comparable  made  by  other  (see appendix F ) .  Bormuth R e a d a b i l i t y Formula Bormuth,  (1969b)  guestioned  all  formulas t o t h a t date and pointed out that had  ever  been  published  Crabbs Test Lessons validated.  no  research  the norms f o r the McCall  a g a i n s t which most formulas had been  Bormuth  percentage  on  readability  scores  correlated with  reading  cloze  procedure  achievement  placement scores f o r the same s t u d e n t s .  grade  Grade placement  s c o r e s corresponding to the 35, 45, and 55 percent c l o z e procedure procedure  scores  were  determined.  Using  a  cloze  c r i t e r i o n score of 45 percent, Bormuth found a  correlation  of  the d i f f i c u l t y  .83  and a c r o s s v a l i d a t i o n  of .92 with  o f t h e passage from which i t was taken.  Bormuth c r i t i c i z e d t r a d i t i o n a l means of judging the suitability  of the d i f f i c u l t y  they were based  upon a r b i t r a r y  l e v e l of materials, saying choice.  He  maintained  24  that  h i s formula  s e l e c t e d a l e v e l o f performance which  represented a l e v e l of comprehension d i f f i c u l t y n e g a t i v e outcomes o f r e a d i n g were minimized outcomes were maximized. to  Bormuth's  at which  and p o s i t i v e  "formula"  appeared  have other advantages i n t h a t i t had the c a p a c i t y t o  measure sentence along  with  cautioned percent concluded  difficulty  passage  even  difficulty.  However,  Bormuth  v a r i a b l e s i n the passages.  He  t h a t the t e s t s t i l l  account  lacked v a l i d i t y , that even  t h i s type of t e s t c o u l d be  fooled  difficult  that  concepts,  difficulty  85  could  the observed  word  f o r only  that h i s study of  or  and  by  easy  further  words  and  research  was  needed.  Cautions Concerning Any Bormuth's  of  the  study,  ReadabilityFormulas five  formulas  would  appear  discussed, to  give  excluding  the  user  a  reasonably s i m i l a r l e v e l of r e a d a b i l i t y .  The  is,  f o r measuring  how  much  credence  should  devices  guestion  r e a d a b i l i t y be given? R e a d a b i l i t y formulas^ or  a s y l l a b l e count  whether they use  lists  t o measure word d i f f i c u l t y , a r e not  a b l e t o take i n t o account  w e l l known  symbolic  sense  or  word  metaphoric  words  used  in a  (Dale and C h a l l ;  1948).  A l s o , they cannot measure the author's s t y l e , the e f f e c t  25  of  typography or format  level  of  the  background, factors to  and  on  the  material* familiarity  certainly  reader,  or  the  with  the  interest  readers  purpose,  the  subject.  a f f e c t r e a d a b i l i t y but do not  be measured by the r e a d a b i l i t y formula  Daines  and  caution,  Mason  Klare  scrambled  and  1972).  (1976)  sentence or the  suggested  in  a  most formulas wculd  that  cited  best,  for  could  be  f i n d the r e a d a b i l i t y version.  McLaughlin,  (1966  )  who  i n f o r m a t i o n or  h i g h , then r e a d a b i l i t y became l e s s  He a l s o s t a t e d that  first  need  paragraph,  when reader's background  l e v e l of i n t e r e s t was critical.  the  8  p o i n t e d out that the words i n a  sentences  (1976)  appear  (Keonk, 1971  Emphasizing  l e v e l to be the same as the unscrambled Klare  These  approximations  "Formula  scores  to d i f f i c u l t y  are,  at  f o r readers,  and human judgements are needed along with  the  scores"  (p.141). Klare  (1976),  Hansell  (1976), McLaughlin  and Dale and C h a l l  (1948)  scores  u s e f u l when thought of i n terms of a  were  most  range of d i f f i c u l t y Vaughan or  that  rather than a p r e c i s e  readability  grade  level.  (1976) suggested that t h i s range should be p l u s  minus one f u l l  grade.  The general-use provide  cautioned  (1969) ,  a  readability  formulas,  therefore,  u s e f u l g u i d e l i n e f o r the s u b j e c t teacher but  they must be used i n c o n j u n c t i o n with teacher judgement.  26  The Cloze Procedure The c l o z e procedure was f i r s t L.  Taylor  1 9 5 3 and at t h a t time was  in  t o o l f o r assessing years  since  i n t r o d u c e d by  readability.  i t s conception,  myriad of. uses  for  the  In  Wilson  seen as a  the  new  twenty-seven  r e s e a r c h e r s have found a  new  technigue.  This  study,  however, focused only on c l o z e procedure as a measure o f comprehension  and 1953,  Taylor derived  from  suggests  readability.  a  there  explained  theory is  a  in  that gestalt  human  up the  -  term c l o z e  psychology  tendency  f a m i l i a r but incomplete p a t t e r n circle  the  to  to  which  complete  "see"  a  broken  gaps. pointed  out  that  existing  readability  formulas were not s e n s i t i v e enough to s t y l e and he examples  where  reasoned  that t h i s was  readability  because r e a d a b i l i t y  which take i n t o account such t h i n g s as short and and  measuring  cited  formulas found the w r i t i n g s of Gertrude  S t e i n and James Joyce to have a low  words  a  as a whole one, f o r example, by m e n t a l l y c l o s i n g  Taylor  He  was  level. formulas common  short and simple sentences, have no means o f Taylor 1 9 5 3 stated:  concept load*  C l o z e procedure counts no such seems,  however*  to  elements.  measure whatever  may  And  a t the same time i t i s a l s o  does  so  on  effects  elements a c t u a l l y it  have  It  readability.  27  t a k i n g account of the i n f l u e n c e s of many other f a c t o r s r e a d a b i l i t y formulas i g n o r e . T h i s theory was supported stated  by  (p.417)  Russell  (1978)  t h a t c l o z e procedure had the c a p a c i t y t o measure  such f a c t o r s  as  sentence  structure,  size  of  print,  concept l o a d , i n t e r e s t , language, and even author In two s t u d i e s i n 1953, T a y l o r  1)  the  cloze  as  procedure would rank passages taken from  d i d the  formula.  formula  procedure  that  standard  the  two  For experiment ranked  formulas  procedure  i n the and  same  the  came  would  "handle"  formulas  did  have  Dale-Chall  t o handle concept 1  i t was  load.  found  that  the  cloze  the passages i n the same order as d i d  and  f o r experiment  closer  2  that  advantages  that they were quicker  the  cloze  than e i t h e r formula to p r o p e r l y  (1953) admitted some  passages  could not due t o  r a n k i n g the r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l s of the passages Taylor  order  (Klare 1963)  their inability  the  Flesch  that the c l o z e  procedure  style.  attempted t o show t h a t :  F l e s c h ' s How to Test R e a d a b i l i t y  2)  who  and  that  readability  (p.427). formulas  over the c l o z e procedure i n easier  to  apply  and f o r  "standard" m a t e r i a l s they seemed reasonably a c c u r a t e . problem  arose  A  i n t h a t i t was d i f f i c u l t t o determine i n  28  advance, which m a t e r i a l s that  were "standard".  He  concluded  : It  is  a  little  readability breeding  unreasonable  score  for  should  Texas "cow  an  apply  that a s i n g l e  article  on  cattle  a l i k e to r e s i d e n t s of  country" and  metropolitan  In such cases i t appears that the  Brooklyn.  user  of  a  formula might employ c l o z e procedures to check up on h i s r e s u l t s * and  also  (p*433)  that: ...a  of the which  c l o z e score  aggregate  appears to be a measure  influences  interact  to  affect  correspondence between the of t r a n s m i t t e r In  1957,  and  of the  stated  factors  degree  language  receiver.  Taylor  all  of  patterns  (p.432) that  the  technique operated on the assumption that  readability  " a) the  more  readable a p i e c e of w r i t i n g i s , the b e t t e r understood i t will  be  even  if  some  words are l e f t out,  b e t t e r w r i t i n g i s understood, the more l i k e l y a reader can guess what words are missing" was  supported by  individual's ability  choice  (1966)  an  who  (of words) was  to comprehend reading  Showing Bormuth  Hafner  early  b)  i t i s that  (p. 19).  stated  the  that  an index of  This the  his/her  matter.  interest  (1966) c r i t i c i z e d  and  in  cloze  procedure,  e x i s t i n g r e a d a b i l i t y formulas  29  stating: I t i s p r o b l e m a t i c whether p r e s e n t l y formulas these  h e l p more t h a n  formulas  are  they  easy  available  hinder.  and  Because  inexpensive  to  a p p l y , t h e y e n j o y w i d e s p r e a d u s e by p u b l i s h e r s and  educators.  "adjusting" the  Publishers difficulty  m a t e r i a l s , and e d u c a t o r s instructional students  at  difficulty. case  that  accurate (p.81  no  to  warrant  (1967),  means  performance  of  by  are  of  for  reading  h a s made a s t r o n g not  either  determining  a  given  materials  significant. caution  suitable  level  an  sufficiently  of  these  Still,  whether  a  "acceptable"  student.  p r o c e d u r e and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e same  instructional  pointed out that u n t i l  procedure score represented  the  are  (1958)  formulas  for  uses,  - 82)  Bormuth was  given  Chall  of  them  u s e them t o d e c i d e i f  materials a  use  He  questions  1967  there  given cloze level  of  compared c l o z e produced  from  and f o u n d t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n  was  i n 1967, he f o u n d i t n e c e s s a r y  to  r e a d e r s t h a t t h e use o f t h e c l o z e p r o c e d u r e was  q u i t e complex.  By 1968, a f t e r  further  experiments,  he  was a b l e t o c o n c l u d e : a)  cloze  readability  tests provide a v a l i d  of a s t u d e n t ' s r e a d i n g comprehension  ability  measure  30  b)  the c l o z e r e a d a b i l i t y procedure p r o v i d e s  method  of  a  valid  measuring the comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s  of passages c)  c l o z e r e a d a b i l i t y scores  suitability The and  can  be used to judge the  of m a t e r i a l s f o r a given  c l o z e procedure became an  respect  as  is  evidenced  students  object  of  by the r a p i d upsurge of  s t u d i e s d e a l i n g with t h i s t o p i c i n the 70*s. procedure device  has  been v a l i d a t e d not  but a l s o as a teaching  S t r u c t u r e of Cloze The  passage  deletions  nor  or t h a t  made.  1953  In a p i l o t f o r the in  five  subjects  deletion  better  deletions.  In  only as a r e a d a b i l i t y  than a  (1953) set no optimum did  it  specify  1956  deletions  as f a r apart  a  discriminated system  between  involving  fewer  study T a y l o r concluded that " i t  as they need be"  (p. 45).  spaces  The  every  fifth  word d e l e t i o n appears to be g e n e r a l l y accepted  the  literature  Culhane  (1970)  (Bormuth suggested  be  study T a y l o r found that a  system did  random  appears t h a t an every f i f t h - w o r d d e l e t i o n system blanks  the  per passage , r a t h e r i t suggested  every nth word be deleted  one  cloze  device.  o r i g i n a l study by T a y l o r ;  of  The  Procedure Passages  number of words per number  interest  1968, that  1968b). the  every  Rankin fifth  in and word  31  deletion  system  was s u i t a b l e f o r n a r r a t i v e m a t e r i a l but  that every tenth word might be more s u i t a b l e f o r t e x t u a l fact  laden  (1968)  material.  who  This  suggested  s h o u l d be one i n  was  twelve.  omitted  MacGinitie  words  when  (1961)  restoration  5th,  Potter  difficult.  reported  significant difference i n every 24th,  word was omitted but he found o m i t t i n g made  by  t h a t i n some i n s t a n c e s d e l e t i o n s  that he found no s t a t i s t i c a l l y restoring  supported  Oiler  10th, 25th plus d e l e t i o n s and  12th or 6th  every  3rd  (1975) t e s t e d found,  word every  contrary  to  M a c G i n i t i e , that the l o n g e r the surrounding context, the e a s i e r the c l o z e item. Not  a l l r e s e a r c h e r s have accepted the p r i n c i p l e o f  random or  every  experimented and  Eankin  lexical  nth  with  word  deletions.  (1956)  easy word versus hard word d e l e t i o n s  (1959) experimented  deletions.  d e l e t i o n system  Taylor  Both  produced  with  structural  concluded  versus  that t h e any-word  generally superior results.  c o n c l u s i o n , the l i t e r a t u r e seems t o  indicate  any-word  deletion  most p r a c t i c a l when  measuring  g e n e r a l comprehension or r e a d a b i l i t y  every  fifth  word  system  i s the  d e l e t i o n system  researching narrative material. necessity  f o r fewer  that  In the  and the  i s most popular when  The  question  of the  deletions i n f a c t laden materials  appears t o be unresolved.  32  Passage  length  The length of a passage r e q u i r e d t o produce a v a l i d c l o z e r e s u l t on the c l o z e procedure has been of to  researchers*  word passage.  Taylor  Bormuth  concern  (1956) suggested a minimum 250  (1968), Rankin  (1970), and Walter  (1974), concurred with t h i s o p i n i o n and the trend i n the l i t e r a t u r e appears t o be t o use t h i s minimum. Taylor contain  (1956) suggested t h a t c l o z e passages  fifty  items  sample to allow easy Bormuth  (1967)  convenience fifty  deletion  and  stated,  and  items"  controversy  which  hard  the  was a l a r g e enough  words  to  cancel  out.  "The t e s t , f o r reasons of both  reliability,  (p.294). in  he f e l t  should  should  There  contain  appears  literature  over  to the  exactly  be  little  fifty  word  p r a c t i c e and most r e s e a r c h e r s appear t o adhere  to i t . Boyce literature  (1974) r e p o r t e d as  should be l e f t  to  amount  before  little of  concurrance  i n the  u n i n t e r r u p t e d prose t h a t  deletions  began.  Some  studies  s t a r t e d d e l e t i o n s from the f i r s t sentence, some l e f t the first the  sentence or two, and s t i l l  f i r s t paragraph i n t a c t .  (1972)  who  Boyce  (1974)  wrote " as i s customary,  sentence of each paragraph were Bormuth  others l e f t  (1969b)  left  as much as  cited  Oiler  the f i r s t and l a s t intact"  and Rankin and Culhane  (p.  15).  (1969) r e p o r t e d  u s i n g t h i s procedure but many n e g l e c t e d t o  report  this  33  aspect of t h e i r  study.  Pre-cloze,Versus Another concern  Post-cloze  aspect  of  the c l o z e procedure  to r e s e a r c h e r s i s what Rankin  p r e - c l o z e and p o s t - c l o z e — taken b e f o r e reading the and  post-cloze  being  m u t i l a t e d passage. results  results however,  called  p r e - c l o z e being a c l o z e t e s t original  a  test  unmutilated  taken a f t e r  slightly  tests.  supported  (1965 ) has  passage  reading  the  T a y l o r , (1956) found p o s t - c l o z e t e s t  correlated  comprehension  that i s of  higher  with  scores  on  Bormuth c i t e d Rankin (1957) whose  those  of  Taylor.  t h e o r i z e d that these r e s u l t s  "...probably  scores  students  had  not  suggested  that t h i s e f f e c t c o u l d be obtained more e a s i l y  that  read  more  were  (1968)  the r e s u l t of  by adding a few  being  Bormuth  the  passage..."  items to the t e s t .  " r e s e a r c h shows t h a t the two  valid"  (p. 193).  p r e p a r a t i o n he f e l t  Because i t was  p r e - t e s t technique.  The  without  Boyce  filled  criticism.  i n blanks without  deletions  as  variable  of  more  than (p. 192).  In 1968, methods savings  when  he r e p o r t e d are  in  desirable  He  to  equally time  and  use  the  p r e - t e s t technique has not gone  an  (1974) f e l t overview  that subjects  who  might  the  treat  a s e r i e s of s u b t e s t s , accounting f o r some  answers which were wrong i n the t o t a l c o n t e x t ,  appearing  34  c o r r e c t i n the l i m i t e d context  of a sentence or group of  words.  Space Length In determining place  of  Taylor  (1953) proposed t h a t  uniform on  length. Bormuth  Lopardo a uniform the  word  all  T h i s was (1967  spaces  1969)  and  necessary.  Anderson using  the  all  uniform  Bortnick  accepted  agreed  it  and of in was  Spooncer (1974) compared space  to  passages u s i n g  spaces the same length as the d e l e t e d word and significant  of  (1956,  Although the use  researchers  (1971) and  be  information  r e i t e r a t e d by T a y l o r  1968,  in  passage,  should  space length appeared to be widely not  left  i n the m u t i l a t e d  (1976) to name j u s t a few*  literature,  passages  deleted  length so as to g i v e the s u b j e c t s no  word  1957),  the  the l e n g t h of spaces to be  d i f f e r e n c e between the two  forms.  found  no  35  S e l e c t i n g a Representative Much the  attention  cloze  has  procedure  confidence  that  representative  Passage been given  but  the  how  to the mechanics of  can  passage  of the m a t e r i a l  researchers  they being  have  have  chosen  tested?  is  Bormuth  (1968) suggested t h a t s i x to twelve passages be randomly selected  from  the  passages using of 30  250  calculated  The and  to  Bormuth  be  as  the  that  minimum  be administered each  test  to 25  was  representative  passage  to  to be The  passage.  materials  that  chosen.  He  also  showed a great deal  from passage to passage would be  ill  suited  of to  technique. Bormuth  (1964)  explained  passage using every f i f t h five  possible  significant He  a  that  the more t e s t s made, the more  would be the  that  (based on.  and  mean score c l o s e s t to the mean of means  emphasized  cautioned  this  mean score on  selected  representative  variance  50 d e l e t i o n s )  considered  then the mean of means c a l c u l a t e d .  passage with the was  being  the c l o z e procedure  words and  students;  material  tests  word  and  he  probably  be  found  procedure avoided  that  a  were  there was  mean score  on  over  precise  a  passage  a  each.  diminish  He concluded t h a t using  test  when  cloze  there  d i f f e r e n c e tended to  as more items were i n c l u d e d . cloze  within  deletions*  d i f f e r e n c e between the  d i d point out that the  single  that  a  should  determinations  of  36  difficulty  were  needed  and  passage were used, then significantly did  he  observed  cautioned that i f one differences  must  be  d i f f e r e n t so as to assure the d i f f e r e n c e s  not a r i s e s o l e l y  because  of  differences  in  test  forms.  Scoring  Methods  Much  controversy  has  s c o r i n g the c l o z e t e s t ; will  only  accepted? contrary, word  McKenna  Despite the  one  many  intuitive  Taylor  synonyms  feelings  (1953),  Bormuth  methods  in  (1967),  to  Rankin  or be the  Oiler  (1959) (1972),  d i f f e r e n c e between  the  exact  scoring  was,  the most exact and economical* that  , and two  terms of v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y .  (1969) suggested t h a t  (1978) argued  accept  word d e l e t e d from the passage  (1976) found l i t t l e  purposes,  the q u e s t i o n of  bulk of r e s e a r c h tended to support exact  (1964),  scoring Bormuth  Does  exact  replacement;  Ruddell  most  the  surrounded  synonyms  should  not  be  for  Russell accepted  because: a) the r e s e a r c h e s t a b l i s h e d d i d not support i t , b)  the c r i t e r i o n f o r c l o z e procedure scores was on only  exact responses  *  c)  scoring  became  subjective  when  synonyms were used. This  concern  for  the  elimination  judgement was a l s o expressed by Culhane  of s u b j e c t i v e (1970),  Walter  37  (1974), and B o r t n i c k and Lopardo are  supportive  of  Taylor  (  (1976). 1956)  who  These  s t a t e d "...the  e a s i e s t ways of a p p l y i n g c l o z e procedure may most uses", putting  and  also  oneself  to  there  is  findings  "...no  be best f o r  advantage  to  the t r o u b l e of judging and s c o r i n g  synonyms" (p.48). However, (1 976),  and  Schoelles McKenna  (1971)  Bortnick  and  Lopardo  (1976) have demonstrated  that f o r  d i a g n o s t i c purposes i n i n d i v i d u a l student assessment for  the purposes of t e a c h i n g ( R a n k i n , 1964), the s c o r i n g  of synonyms can prove u s e f u l . Asher  or  (1976)  Both McKenna  (1976)  and  noted that high a c h i e v i n g c h i l d r e n s c o r e d  s l i g h t l y higher when synonyms were counted. Tn an unmodified c l o z e procedure, synonyms are counted,  but  spelling  errors,  (when i t i s obvious the  student has m i s p e l l e d the c o r r e c t word) are correct.  Improper  word  endings,  counted as i n c o r r e c t as Myers indicates  the  student  is  meaning of the sentence* each  student  counted  however,  not  aware  Finally,  the  o f the raw  as  should be  (1976) suggests that  this  complete  score  for  i s the number o f exact word replacements.  The percentage score i s c a l c u l a t e d and the t o t a l p o s s i b l e The  not  results  from  the  raw  score  deletions.  of  research  related  summarized by Jongsma  (1971) who  stated:  The l i t e r a t u r e c o n s i s t e n t l y shows the  to s c o r i n g  scoring  was  38  of  exact  replacements  objective,  efficient,  and  with  be  the  useful  system  to  Although  s l i g h t l y higher r e l i a b i l i t y  obtained,  use  to  the  cloze  a t times, by u s i n g other  most  scoring procedure. has  been  procedures  such as synonym count, the i n c r e a s e d time  and  s u b j e c t i v i t y necessary f o r such systems do not warrant  their  use.  The  exception  synonym usage may be using the c l o z e as a t e a c h i n g technigue.  CIoze Procedure Formulas,  (p. 7-8)  T e s t s V a l i d a t e d Against R e a d a b i l i t y  order  recognition  f o r the as  a  cloze  device  readability  formulas  established  Bormuth  (1967), (1948),  demonstrating  of  cited and  to  measuring  reading  the  like  t o be v a l i d a t e d a g a i n s t reading  comprehension.  F r e d e r i c k (1955), B e t t s Dale  gain  f o r t h i s procedure,  before i t ,  measure  that  procedure for  comprehension i t was necessary  Flesch  procedure  M u l t i p l e - c h o i c e T e s t s and Standardized T e s t s  In  an  t o the  and  Chall  multiple-choice  (1954),  (1948)  comprehension  t e s t was a "widely known frame o f r e f e r e n c e accepted both  readability  (p.292). correctly  research  and  i n classroom  Bormuth f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t when a answered  in  in  practice" student  75 - 90 percent of g u e s t i o n s over a  39  passage  the  supervised  material  was  instruction.  indicated materials  Scores  suitable  above  90  for  percent  might be used f o r independent study.  Scores below 75 percent difficult  considered  i n d i c a t e d the m a t e r i a l  f o r normal i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes  was  too  (p.292).  F i r s t attempts to v a l i d a t e the c l o z e procedure were made by T a y l o r readability against  (1953 ) against  the F l e s c h and D a l e - C h a l l  formulas which had themselves been v a l i d a t e d  comprehension g u e s t i o n s .  T a y l o r found the c l o z e  procedure  consistently  ranked s e l e c t e d passages i n the  same order  as  formulas  procedure  handled  Thelen the  the  concept  (1974) pointed  cloze  used  procedure  "...studies  seem to show  tests  this  same  that  cloze  cloze over  and the  conventional same  of  and  cloze the  out t h a t  conventional Taylor  scores  on  (1953)  a  cloze  t e s t made  (1968) c i t e d Bormuth .73  to  t e s t s (constructed  passages.  most  demonstrated  (p.431).  Bormuth  (1967) who found c o r r e l a t i o n s  has  validate  on a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  passage.  formula,  when he p o i n t e d  measure the same process"  the  to  (1968b)  found a c o r r e l a t i o n of .76 between  over  As  the student's a b i l i t y t o  approach  procedure t e s t and scores  cloze  adequately.  readability  tests  Bormuth  of  the  Subseguent r e s e a r c h  multiple-choice  usefulness  that  more  out " u n l i k e  (p. 26) .  scores*  and  load  procedure e v a l u a t e s  handle the t e x t " often  two  When  .84  between  by Bormuth)  corrections  for  40  unreliabilities 1.00.  Bormuth  were  made  the c o r r e l a t i o n s  (1962) found a c o r r e l a t i o n  of .92 between  c l o z e procedure r e s u l t s and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e the  same  passage.  In  approached  tests  a l a t e r study, Bormuth  over  (1967),  used f o u r forms of the Gray O r a l Reading Paragraphs  and  found c o r r e l a t i o n s of .90 t o .95 between c l o z e procedure scores  and  word  recognition  difficulties  paragraphs and c o r r e l a t i o n s of .91 to c l o z e procedure and comprehension The  cloze  established  procedure  was  multiple-choice  dissatisfaction  has  been  .96  i n the  between  the  difficulties* validated  against  the  test,  but  comprehension  expressed with t h e m u l t i p l e -  choice test  i t s e l f and  looked  as a p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e to t h i s measure of  to  the  cloze  r e a d a b i l i t y or comprehension. Pennock  (|973),  Bortnick  and  Lopardo  multiple-choice guestions,  Boyce  or  i t was  difficulty  difficulty of  (1974),  Miller  pointed  that  with  of  difficult  to  determine  the  (1968), and  out  the d i f f i c u l t y  been  (1975),  forms  of  has  (1963),  other  comprehension i f  the  o f the passage,  guestions,  the  student's  i n h a n d l i n g the q u e s t i o n s or t h e s u b j e c t i v i t y  t h e marker*  Also i t was d i f f i c u l t  q u e s t i o n s adequately sampled The  Bormuth  (1976)  student's score r e f l e c t e d the  procedure  time  comprehension  required test  to in  to  know  i f the  the content o f the passage.  construct order  and to  scrutinize  minimize  a  the  41  aforementioned of  most  problems,  i s beyond  practitioners.  conclude  This  the  led  time  constraints  Taylor  (1957)  to  that:  Although  cloze  generally  s i m i l a r i n the  yielded,  the  different for  and  two  in  the  'any*  cost,  cloze  method  kinds  kinds  construction.  with  comprehension  of  of r e s u l t s they  tests  effort,  The  t e s t s were  and  were  time  very  required  a d v a n t a g e s seem  to  be  procedure in general,  and  the  of  mutilation  in  particular,  (p.25) Bortnick cloze  procedure  allowed  procedure  (1976)  was  Coleman  the  , Bdrmuth  Having procedure  and  its  the  cloze  investigation  is  (Bormuth  the  1963  ,  validity  and  (p.116). the  a  cloze  superior,  Miller  based  on  a passage, now  validated  procedure. needed  before  of  the  superiority  Coleman have  formulas  therefore  a  which  produce r e l i a b l e  suggested  questions  Bormuth and  readability  derived  same m a t e r i a l "  and  that  and  1969b).  established  comprehension  out  then, appears to i n d i c a t e that  comprehension  1967  pointed  objectively  i s a more r e l i a b l e ,  measure o f  using  test  instruments over  literature,  s u c h as  Lopardo  "different test writers to  equivalent The  and  It  appears  i t can  be  over  researchers  begun  against  cloze  developing  test that  results more  determined i f  42  r e a d a b i l i t y formulas d e r i v e d from more  or  less  valid  than  cloze  procedure  multiple-choice  are  derived  formulas* The c o r r e l a t i o n of results  on  standardized  t h i s study which measure  of  has  procedure  results  t e s t s i s of v i t a l  used  a  significant  (  standardized  1955)  and  with  i n t e r e s t to test  the s t u d e n t s ' reading grade l e v e l .  (1963) c i t e d F l e t c h e r found  cloze  Rankin  as  Bormuth  (1957)  c o r r e l a t i o n s between c l o z e  the  Pikulski  Jones  (1974), found a c o r r e l a t i o n of .73 between  c l o z e procedure and the  Skills.  who  procedure  and an assortment of s t a n d a r d i z e d r e a d i n g t e s t s . and  a  Smith  and Zink  Comprehensive T e s t of B a s i c  (1977) found a c o r r e l a t i o n  .74  between the t o t a l s c o r e s of the Davis Reading Test  Form  2A  same  and  cloze  procedure  scores  passages*  They  correlation  between scores on the DRT  derived  from  therefore  made  the  same  reported  instrument  over  that  measured  by  (cited  the s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t "  in  Rankin  Tinzmann and Thompson ranged Kingston  from  (1977)  approximately  1965)* found .70  to  (1963), using the t o t a l raw  Reading Test^ found  a  low  high test  i n d i c a t e s t h a t the  s t u d i e s by Jenkinson (1957) , R u d d e l l ( (1964) ,  "The  and the c l o z e  c l o z e t e s t measured the c o n s t r u c t reading as  the  comprehension (p.397).  1963) ,  Bormuth  Other  Friedman (  1965),  correlations *85.  Weaver  score of  correlation  that and  the  Davis  between  cloze  43  procedure r e s u l t s and s t a n d a r d i z e d v e r b a l comprehension." required  to  They found  the  Weaver  Rankin  and  c o r r e l a t i o n between the Bormuth and  (1969)  Kingston  and  cloze  seems  to  would  t e s t i n g device* that  the  identifying  abilities  that  of  reading  a  standardized  on s e v e r a l that  low test.  accounts.  there  is  between c l o z e procedure tests. the  cioze  a  scores  T h i s being the  Jones and P i k u l s k i  accuracy  found  that  t h a t the data used by Weaver  indicate  correlation  argue  study  and  be questioned  scores on s t a n d a r d i z e d  many  the  (1965) pointed out  Kingston  cautioned  should  Research significant  that  11  complete a c l o z e procedure were r e l a t e d t o  redundancy u t i l i z a t i o n * only  t e s t s i n respect to  case,  i s the p r e f e r a b l e (1974)  standardized  achievement  pointed  out  tests i n precisely was  guestionable.  B o r t n i c k and Lopardo  (1976) e x p l a i n e d  tests  t o normative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , which  are  permits the  limited  that  "Standardized  only comparison of one group or i n d i v i d u a l  norm  population"  (1978) a l s o pointed  (p. 114).  Rakes  out t h a t c l o z e  and McWilliams  procedure  or  i n f o r m a l t e s t s are l e s s expensive than s t a n d a r d i z e d batteries*  Taking  criticisms  i t appears  It  would  appear  other test  i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the aforementioned  c r i t i c a l of standardized multiple-choice  with  or  that  the  literature  t e s t s than of  completion  advisable  use  less  non-standardized  comprehension  to  is  the  questions.  former  when  44  attempting  to  establish  the  validity  of  the  cloze  procedure over a given passage.  Frame of Reference f o r C l o z e Procedure Scores  For some time the main weakness of procedure absence  of  criteria  The  could  interpretation difficulty  set  f o r interpreting  relative  passages  cited  of  difficulty be  could each  of two or  determined be  ' raw  placed  but upon  no the  (Rankin 1 9 7 0  passage.  i n Van Rooy 1 9 7 3 p. 7 )  In an attempt to e s t a b l i s h such c r i t e r i a *  standards  by  have been  Thorndike  accepted. child's  They  him/her  instructional  about  and  (1917),  indicated  answer c o r r e c t l y  75 the  that  level percent  Betts ( 1 9 5 4 ) materials  when of  which the c h i l d difficult  were  he/she the  passage, and at h i s / h e r  attempt  to e s t a b l i s h a  scores  Bormuth  (1967)  frame  cf  compared  m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e comprehension  tests  asked  M a t e r i a l s on considered In h i s f i r s t  reference cloze  a  independent  scored below 7 5 percent were f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes.  at  was able t o  questions  l e v e l when he/she could answer 9 0 percent;  too  cloze  as a measure o f r e a d a b i l i t y was the  scores. more  the  for  procedure  administered  cloze and over  45  the  same  passages and to the same readers.  He found a  c l o z e score of 38 percent was comparable t o a choice  score  of  75  percent  and  multiple-  a c l o z e score of 50  percent was comparable to a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e score of percent.  90  He cautioned t h a t when m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e s c o r e s  were c o r r e c t e d f o r guessing, a c l o z e reguired  to  criterion.  reach  In t h i s  the  75  1967 study  score  percent  of  43  was  multiple-choice  Bormuth observed  ceiling  e f f e c t s on the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e s c o r e s which may have l e d to  the  low c l o z e scores when compared t o the m u l t i p l e -  choice scores. further  The f o l l o w i n g year Bormuth  investigation,  Reading „;.Tests . level  of  The  "Two of the  difficulty  s u b j e c t who took  this  were  time four  pair  paragraphs  randomly  this  study  percent  Bormuth  and  criterion  57  as  percent  comparable  s c o r e s of 75 and 90 percent; as  the  most  these  Culhane  (1969) r e p l i c a t e d the Bormuth scores  percent;  This  tests.  of  41  by the  to  In  s c o r e s of 44 comprehension  Bormuth appears reliable  study  f o r he  Rankin and and  found  percent and 61 percent  r e s p e c t i v e l y ; comparable t o c r i t e r i o n s c o r e s of 90  t o each  cloze  r e s u l t s i n subseguent papers;  procedure  each  (Bormuth 1968).  quoted  cloze  assigned  found c l o z e procedure  to view the 1968 study  on  o f paragraphs was taken  same s u b j e c t as o r a l reading t e s t s "  a  using the Gray O r a l  these two paragraphs  complementary  undertook  75  and  l e d Rankin and Culhane t o conclude  46  that the 1968 Bormuth s c o r e s were v a l i d . results  these  vary s l i g h t l y the l i t e r a t u r e seems t o recommend  t h a t students percent  whose  would  scores  above  likely  that to  for instruction.  would  independent study A reported  between  40  and  59  s c o r i n g below 40 percent would f i n d the  m a t e r i a l too d i f f i c u l t or  fall  p r o f i t from i n s t r u c t i o n on t h a t m a t e r i a l  whereas students  sixty  Because  find  scoring  little  new  scoring  the m a t e r i a l s u i t a b l e f o r  Pennock (1973) and  students  gain  Those  Dishner  (1973)  above 65 percent  information  from  were that  material A With the c r i t e r i a f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g raw c l o z e s c o r e s now  in  place  the p r a c t i t i o n e r can have some degree of  c o n f i d e n c e i n determining for  a given  Although  Procedure  applicability  not gone without  criticism  caution  considered,  be  c l o z e procedure cannot  be  .  of c l o z e procedure* The  major  concerns  t e s t c o n s t r u c t e d over  assumed  other c l o z e procedure passage.  materials  the l i t e r a t u r e appears to support both the  and  to  of  student;  C r i t i c i s m s of the Cloze  validity  the s u i t a b i l i t y  i t has  criticism,  or  the f a c t t h a t any a  given  passage  t o be of the same d i f f i c u l t y as any test  constructed  over  the  same  I f an every f i f t h word d e l e t i o n system i s used  47  there  are  five  p o s s i b l e c l o z e procedure t e s t s .  every t e n t h word d e l e t i o n system i s used t h e r e p o s s i b l e t e s t s and so on.  the  test  the  are ten  T h i s concern was expressed by  both Bormuth (T964) and Boyce longer  I f an  (1974).  Bormuth found the  l e s s v a r i a b i l i t y o c c u r r e d but he  suggested that f o r r e s e a r c h purposes, more than one t e s t form be used. not  a  Boyce e x p l a i n e d that the v a r i a b i l i t y  problem  i f the  test  was  being  used t o rank  students but i t might pose problems when the used  to  compare  a  score  and  might  the  suitability  criterion decision  as  student.  Boyce  had  a  to  definite  syllable  replacement 21.2  influence  rate  practitioner  may  was  to  be  in of  an  material  percent  affecting still  i t i s not  a  word  the  be-  replacement well  selecting  ease,  advised the  weighted towards  the  t o use  passage  to  e i t h e r long or  I t should be kept i n mind t h a t scores a r e  interpreted  that  for a  whereas  within  very  wide  ranges  f r u s t r a t i o n , i n s t r u c t i o n a l or independent. appear  incorrect  on the student's a b i l i t y to  73.4  p r o f e s s i o n a l judgement when  s h o r t words.  result  Recognizing t h a t word l e n g t h i s c e r t a i n l y factor  sure  score t o an e s t a b l i s h e d  f o r words seven l e t t e r s or longer was  not the only  make  was  The mean replacement r a t e f o r one and  words  percent;  score  (1978) found t h a t the l e n g t h o f  r e p l a c e the word. two  student's  was  they  were meant to be r i g i d l y  labelled  I t does  not  compared t o  48  c r i t e r i o n scores. Other c r i t i c i s m s of the studies Kirby  by  Sauer  (1969,  cloze  procedure  reported  by R i l e y  (1967 c i t e d by Walter 1974)  cloze  procedure  l e v e l s of Kirby  did  students  who  and  that  the  in  the  lower  elementary  grades.  (1968) found t h a t students whose word r e c o g n i t i o n  the  cloze  recognition procedure scores  of  scores  Pollock  to  subjects  the  (1974)  informal  from  both  cloze  a  compared reading  middle  procedure  cloze  inventory and  upper  yielded  and  depressed  f o r students from lower socioeconomic l e v e l s  and  t h e r e f o r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r use with such s t u d e n t s . F i n a l l y Tuinman ( 1975)  procedure  measures  comprehension cloze  local  suggested redundancy  of major i d e a s .  procedure  are  that  These  certainly  the  more  the  in  the  limitation useful  to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n s t a t u r e nor s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the l i t e r a t u r e to i n any way which  the  average classroom.  cloze  affect  procedure  might  the  cloze  than  background  knowledge f o r the p r a c t i t i o n e r but they would not  with  better  l e v e l and a lower socioeconomic l e v e l  concluded that the scores  significantly  procedure than those with l e s s developed  skills*  socioeconomic  was  found  1973)  not adequately assess the r e a d i n g  a b i l i t i e s were adeguate performed on  included  appear  supported confidence  be used i n an  49  M o d i f i c a t i o n s on the Cloze  Procedure  Over the years v a r i o u s numerous  alterations  procedure. for  the  or  researchers modifications  A s t r e a m l i n e d sampling practitioner,  was  have to  proposed the  cloze  process, most  proposed  useful  by Pennock  He suggested t h a t r a t h e r  than  passages  on a sample p o p u l a t i o n , that a  to  be  tested  prepare  six  (1973).  to  r e a d a b i l i t y formula be a p p l i e d t o the passages  twelve  and  the  passage that came c l o s e s t to the mean r e a d a b i l i t y of a l l the  passages  should  be prepared as a c l o z e  Such a process would save hours would being  increase  the  of  likelihood  work  procedure.  and  of the c l o z e  as  procedure  used. Most other proposals have v a r i e d more widely  from the t r a d i t i o n a l conducted  reading  cloze  procedure.  Hafner  high  correlation  results.  Carver  between  this  the  incorrect  corrections  theorized of  and  fill  l e t t e r s was  letter. replaced  S u b j e c t s were asked t o make in  the  blanks.  Carver  that t h i s type of t e s t gave the reader a chunk  i n f o r m a t i o n to a s s i s t i n the r e t r i e v a l of the c o r r e c t  word. was  letter.  and  (1974) c o n s t r u c t e d a t e s t i n  i n every f i v e of these i n i t i a l an  (1965)  test  which every second word c o n t a i n e d only the f i r s t  with  afield  a study using d e l e t i o n s of l e t t e r s from words  and found a  One  such  Although  Carver i n d i c a t e d that f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h  r e q u i r e d he reported that the r e s u l t s suggested  this  50  type of t e s t was as v a l i d  as  more r e l i a b l e i n measuring  the  with  a  procedure  and  reading gain.  Cunningham and Cunningham procedure  cloze  (1978) compared the c l o z e  l i m i t e d c l o z e procedure i n which the  d e l e t e d words were randomly ordered and p l a c e d above t h e passage. of  73  In study one they found the  percentage  range  - 93 percent was e g u i v a l e n t to the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  l e v e l range on the c l o z e procedure and i n study two they found a range of 60 - 81 percent. the  limited  cloze  procedure  o b j e c t i v e and  practical  interpretable"  (p.211).  the  implication  d e l e t e d word; study  as  concluded  was "as v a l i d , regular  reliable,  cloze,  but  o f using a dash  Two s e t s o f d e l e t i o n s were  used  the p o s s i b i l i t y of  unrepresentative  S u b j e c t s were a l s o given expected  cloze  easy a  procedure  h i g h e r but t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n s c o r e s was about Klare  or  difficult  i n the forms.  hitting  a  passage*  multiple-choice test.  As  s c o r e s on the dash form were with  the m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  the same as the standard format.  Entin  concluded that "the dash format should be a t  l e a s t as good a measure of comprehension format"  less  f o r each l e t t e r of t h e  - the same two f o r the s o l i d l i n e and dash  single  that  E n t i n and K l a r e ( 1978) s t u d i e d  T h i s was done t o minimize  and  They  as the standard  (p.427).  Anderson  (1971) and Spooncer  (1974) found that when  the standard l e n g t h blank was r e p l a c e d by  a  blank  the  51  same  size  as  the  deleted  word,  s c o r e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y cited  Anderson  increased. further  (1974) cloze  procedure passages could be c o n s t r u c t e d by g l u i n g  paper  the  who  Boyce suggested  over  (1971)  the c l o z e procedure  words i n the o r i g i n a l passage t h a t were to  deleted.  The  suggested  passage could then be photocopied.  that  contextual  this  clues  would  give  available  in  the  Boyce  student  regular  be  a l l the  reading.  He  I  further  simplified  the Anderson process by using  paper to d e l e t e the words. space  left  print  was  validy  numbered of  this  procedure, was The  in  (1965) who  sheet.  method,  as  and  provided  Unfortunately,  opposed  to  the  information McCabe's  to a the  cloze  tested.  McCabe (1979) .  detail  in  Chapter  The I.  McCabe p r o p o s a l  concept  proposal  retrieval*  which  l e t t e r s , p a r t i a l words and purpose of t h i s research  involves whole  a high  (1974)  of g i v i n g the reader  to a s s i s t i n  is  Studies by Hafner  found t h a t the d e l e t i o n of l e t t e r s had  the  the  the student  c o r r e l a t i o n with reading r e s u l t s , and Carver supported  that  recent i n n o v a t i o n i n the c l o z e procedure  o u t l i n e d by  outlined  answer  not  most  found  often too s m a l l t o allow  the word* he numbered the blanks  separate  was  Because he  liguid  who  a chunk of  lend  credence  to  the  deletion  of  words.  It  was  the  to determine the v a l i d y of t h i s  approach i n r e l a t i o n to the S t a n f o r d  Diagnostic.  52  CHAPTER I I I  A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY The  entire  p o p u l a t i o n of grade nine students i n a  suburban d i s t r i c t reading  in British  achievement  Columbia  as  measured  was by  tested the  for  Stanford  D i a g n o s t i c Reading T e s t , Blue L e v e l , Form  A  referred  A passage was  to  as  Stanford Diagnostic  ).  (hereafter  then s e l e c t e d using the F r y R e a d a b i l i t y Graph.  A  procedure,  Procedure  a  Beginning  (B.O.P.P.) and Procedure  an  exact  Beginning  randomly  to  were i n s t r u c t e d t o f i l l  word,  deleted*  Page of  and modified c l c z e procedure  distributed  Students  "instant"  the  the  Page  were c o n s t r u c t e d over t h i s same passage*  c l o z e procedure then  of  cloze  words  Only  or  exact  parts  every  tests  third  were  student.  i n the blanks with of  replacements  The  the  words which had been of  deletions  were  nine  students  in a  scored.  S e l e c t i o n of Subjects Subjects  tested  were  grade  middle  c l a s s suburban d i s t r i c t *  class  district  families.  The  The area was a . working  with a high percentage percentage  of  of s i n g l e  immigrant  parent  families  was  53  minute.  T e s t i n g took p l a c e i n A p r i l w i t h i n the E n g l i s h  classroom  as a l l grade nine students  the  entire  students be  year;  who  Of  the two  took  English  hundred and  took part i n t e s t i n g only 196  considered  t e s t i n g days.  due One  were male and 90  to  absenteeism  hundred and  on  six  thirty-nine  scores  could  either  of  over  these  of  the  subjects  were female.  Procedures f o r A d m i n i s t e r i n g and  S c o r i n g the  Stanford  D i a g n o s t i c Heading Test The reading  Stanford D i a g n o s t i c was c a p a b i l i t i e s of students  plus c o l l e g e . accurate  I t was  assessment  designed of  not appear to give an superior  readers;  9 students of test  the  designed  provide  low-achieving  particularly  students but d i d  accurate  the  assessment  Stanford D i a g n o s t i c .  comprehension Each student  an answer sheet.  Thirty-five  minutes  was  They were  to darken i n the c i r c l e corresponding chose.  collected  and  of  was  section given a  instructed  to the answer they allowed  for  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the comprehension s u b t e s t and t h i s s t r i c t l y adhered to;  12  Over a p e r i o d of one week, a l l grade  were administered  booklet and  i n grades 9 through  to  equally  to measure the  When time had  hand scored  t o t a l comprehension raw  expired, tests  using an answer s t e n c i l ;  score was  computed;  the was were The  54  P r o c e d u r e s . f o r S e l e c t i n g the Passage The passage was s e l e c t e d Specific S k i l l s Series,  Book  This book i s recommended f o r grade  from I,  working  at  grade 7.5.  the  The Fry R e a d a b i l i t y Graph word  segments  was  of  and both were found t o have a r e a d a b i l i t y  independent  the level  As the Fry Graph measures f r u s t r a t i o n level  it  was  felt  eighth month c f grade  to  that t h i s passage  s u i t a b l e f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n of an the  the F a c t s " .  Passages i n the book were  then a p p l i e d to two one hundred  of  Loft,  a s e l e c t i o n reasonably f r e e of  proper nouns and numbers;  passage  Barnell  "Getting  students  9 instructional level;  assessed i n order t o f i n d  the  average  was  student  in  9.  Procedures f o r C o n s t r u c t i n g , A d m i n i s t e r i n g and Marking the  Cloze^Procedure A  fifty  item c l o z e procedure t e s t was  constructed  u s i n g a s e l e c t i o n found s u i t a b l e by the F r y Graph. first  and  last  sentences  suggested by T a y l o r an  every  fifth  left  (1956), Bormuth  word  deletion  standard l e n g t h space was be  were  intact  ( 1968)  although  1968,  Anderson  1969,  and  employed  as t h i s  Bortnick  and  (1971) and Spooncer  The  appeared 1956,  Lopardo  as  others,  pattern was used.  the most commonly used procedure (Taylor  Bormuth 1967,  and  The  to  1957, 1976)  (1974) found the  55  l e n g t h of the space made no test  significant  difference  to  results. Students were given the c l o z e t e s t i n t h e i r E n g l i s h  classes  within  Diagnostics every  one  week  of  taking  The c l o z e procedure was given  third  student  T h i s was t o allow  c l o z e procedure r e s u l t s t o s t a n d a r d i z e d also to create a seriousness required.  cloze  Using  technigue,  deleted  words  passage.  It  randomly  students  were  having  was e x p l a i n e d  c o r r e l a t i o n of  t e s t r e s u l t s and  (1965) c a l l e d the p r e asked read  to f i l l  the  on  i n the  unmutilated  t h a t they were not expected  i n a l l the spaces but t h a t a score o f  j u s t twenty out of f i f t y was e q u i v a l e n t t o percent  to  o f t e n absent when names a r e  what Rankin  without  to be able t o f i l l  Stanford  who was i n s t r u c t e d to put h i s / h e r  name on h i s / h e r paper.  not  the  a multiple-choice  exam.  that they could take as much time as  seventy-five  Students were t o l d they  required  to  complete the t e s t . The exact  c l o z e procedure t e s t s were hand scored  replacements  of  Minor s p e l l i n g e r r o r s , deleted  deleted where  word was intended  words  i t was  were clear  , were accepted.  m u l t i p l i e d by two t o o b t a i n a percentage. G f o r the c l o z e procedure)  and only accepted. that  the  Scores were (see appendix  56  Procedures f o r C o n s t r u c t i n g ; A d m i n i s t e r i n g and  Marking  the,Beginning„of_the Page Procedure The passage used f o r the standard test  was  27.5 set  typed  by 11 inch  cm wide) p i e c e of white paper.  procedure  (24 cm high by  The t y p e w r i t e r  f o r one and a h a l f spaces between l i n e s :  paper  1/10th  the  glued one inch first of  onto a 9 1/2  cloze  and  length  (2.5 cm)  A s t r i p of  of the average l i n e was  from the l e f t  was  then  hand margin:  The  l a s t sentences were l e f t i n t a c t so the  strip  paper d i d not i n t e r s e c t the  sentences;  As  noted  by  lines  containing  these  Boyce (1974), the space  left  when a t y p e w r i t t e n word i s d e l e t e d i s o f t e n too small t o allow a student to reproduce the was  therefore  numbered  c o r r e s p o n d i n g number was line.  This  master  and  B . O i P . P .  was  the  students  Each  deletion  space the then  with  end  of  the each  photocopied t o  tests.  The B.O.P.P. was randomly of  a  p r o v i d e d at  p r o v i d e the r e q u i r e d number'of  one-third  word.  distributed who  w r i t e t h e i r names on the papers.  to  another  were a l s o r e q u i r e d t o They  were  instructed  t h a t a word; words or p a r t s of words were missing and the to  space  provided i n the r i g h t hand margin; they were  w r i t e i n the  Again  the  on  exact  students  words were  that  given  had as  been  much time as they  r e q u i r e d and again the p r e - c l o z e procedure was The s c o r i n g procedure was  deleted.  not d i s c u s s e d  employed; by  McCabe  57  but  i t was  reasonable was  decided  that  only exact replacements and  s p e l l i n g e r r o r s would be c r e d i t e d .  given  One  f o r each p a r t i a l word r e p l a c e d and two marks  were given f o r every  whole word r e p l a c e d .  The s t u d e n t s '  p o i n t s were added as were the t o t a l p o s s i b l e t e s t and  mark  a percentage score was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each  points  student,  (see appendix H f o r the B.O.P.P.)  Procedures f o r C o n s t r u c t i n g , A d m i n i s t e r i n g the " I n s t a n t " Beginning The  passage  used  of the Page Procedure f o r the c l o z e procedure and the  B.O.P.P. was a l s o used f o r the " i n s t a n t " selection  was  photocopied,  and  last  cm)  from  left  sentences i n t a c t .  numbered  and  corresponding margin. to  the  a  uniform  the  1  glued  inch  provided  were space  in  the  t e s t was  once with right  again the hand  photocopied  r e q u i r e d number of t e s t s f o r the f i n a l  1/3 o f t h e experimental The  blank  (appendix I) The r e s u l t i n g  provide  The  margin, l e a v i n g t h e f i r s t and  The d e l e t i o n s  number was  B.O.P.P.  a s t r i p of paper one-  t e n t h the l e n g t h of the average l i n e was (2.5  and Marking  population.  " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. l i k e the c l o z e procedure and  the B.O.P.P., was administered  during the E n g l i s h p e r i o d  and  the  w i t h i n one week of t a k i n g  Students  were  given  Stanford  Diagnostic.  as much time as they r e q u i r e d and  58  the  pre-cloze  procedure  to  students  were  B.O.P.P.  and t h e  the  both  the  the  cloze  procedure,  1.  of  The the  to  the  of  B.O.P.P.  2.  A table  and  of  3.  is  way  calculated  cloze (Table  also  "instant"  were  for  the  to  the  same.  B.O.P.P.  encouraged  test  "instant"  by  also  sex  for  analysis to  of  determine  sex  groups,  as  in  record  procedure,  the  calculated  cloze  B.O.P.P.  for  (Tables  I  each  cell;  variance if  total  B.O.P.P.  there for  -  the  each  standard total  male  II)  the  distribution  (Table  IV)  (an F S t a t i s t i c ) was  a  was  statistically  Stanford  population and  for  for  procedure,  Means a n d  calculated  difference  for  was  StanfordDiagnostic  provided demonstrating  scores  III)  given  were  deviation  populations.  significant mean  on the  were  subjects  A one  those  instructions  test.  three  female  The  Data  deviations and  the  scores  the  the  students  mean a n d s t a n d a r d raw  as  procedures  B . O . P . P . and  reactions  Analysis  employed.  same  scoring  In  their  was  and  "instant"  Diagnostic for  groups  B.O.P.P.  59  Histograms and  were  prepared  f o r subgroups  "instant"  cloze  cloze  procedure*  B.O.P.P., based  Stanford D i a g n o s t i c . procedure,  f o r the t o t a l  on  raw  population  B.O.P.P. and  s c o r e s from the  The percent scores f o r groups  B.O.P.P. and  were a l s o presented  "instant"  i n histograms.  B.O.P.P.  (Figures  I  VII)  The  mean and standard  percentage procedure,  scores  d e v i a t i o n was prepared  on  each o f the subgroups* c l o z e  B.O.P.P. and " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P.  f o r sex  and  the  between  means  f o r the  significance  of  The mean  the difference  was a l s o c a l c u l a t e d .  (Tables V, V I ,  VII)  An  estimated  comparing  equivalency  scores  on  graph  the  was  cloze  prepared,  procedure,  the  B.O.P.P. and the " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. t o both the raw scores  and  Diagnostic.  the  grade  was  prepared  procedure, each  on  the  Stanford  corresponding  scatter  (Table IX)  A p r e d i c t i o n equation plot  scores  group  and  f o r each  B.O.P.P. and as  a  the  of  the groups c l o z e  "instant"  criterion  D i a g n o s t i c Test as the p r e d i c t o r .  B.O.P.P. u s i n g  and  the  Stanford  (Figure VIII - X)  60  The p r e d i c t e d r e g r e s s i o n l i n e s f o r each group procedure,  B.O.P.P. and  drawn on a s i n g l e graph;  "instant"  cloze  procedure,  The  were  B.O.P.P. and  B.O.P.P. percentage s c o r e s with raw s c o r e s .  B.O.P.P. were  (Figure XI)  Pearson, product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s for  cloze  Stanford  computed "instant" Diagnostic  (Table X)  significance  o f the c o r r e l a t i o n s of the c l o z e  procedure, B.O.P.P. and " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c were computed.  with t h e  (Table XI)  (0000*1 = HILdltt T V A H 3 M I )  96L  x+ I + 0  XX + XXXX + XXXXXXX + XXXXXXX+ XXXXXXX+ XXXXX+ XXXXXXXXX+ XX + XXXXX+ XXXXXX+ XXXXX+ XXXXXXX+ XXXXXX+ XX + XXXX + XXXXXXXX+ XXXXXXX+ XXXXXXXXX+ XXX + XXXXXXXXXX+ XXXXXXXXX+ XXXX + XXXXX+ XXXXX+ XXXX + XXXXXXXXXXX+ XXXX + XXXX + XXXXX+ XXXXXXX+ XXXXXX+ XX + XX + XXX + XX + XX +  z h  x +  I  L L L  9 6 z  Hova)  am.  aaoiNVJ.su  aoa saaoos ftva  SUSIK  iKioaaiw  0'" L 0''Z 9 ': e ' '•e ' '•ii  9 9 9 9  0'' i  9 '• z I '• e  9  9 1: s 9 ''£  L 9  z 17  I '£ 0 'I' 0 •z  8  I ''ii  L 6  9 ''£ 9 ' •ti  e  S '" I  01 6  9  I •s  17  "ii 0 'Z '  9 9  9 'Z 9 'Z  1  17  0'•z  U  9 ' '9  t7 17 s  L 9  XX + z + 0 + 0 x+ L =x  9' 9  000':89 000'•Z.9 000 ""99 000"'99 000 ": I J S 000'"£9 o o o : '29 000':i9 000 ''09 000''6tj 000''8t7 000''Ltl 000 '• 9t7 000''9tj 000 ' 000'• e n 000'•Zii 000'•itl 000 ''017 000'• 6 e 000'•8£ 000'•L£ 000''9£ 000 '"9£ 0 00'' 1 7 £ 000''££ 000''Z£ 000'' I £ 000''.0£ 000''6Z 000'•8Z 000''Lz 000''9Z 000'"92 000 •tiz 000'•£Z 000'•zz 000'' IZ 000''OZ 000 ''Si 000 ''81 000''LI . 000' '91 000 ''91 000'" 6  •o  s 9  z z £ z z + 0  x +  9'  I  aqa i s n p o  0 'Z 0 'Z ' 9 :z 9 ''£ I '£ 0''I 0 'I a 'I 0 'I 0'' I •o  9' 0'" I  •o •o  •MOII.V'indOd 1V10J, aaoaois  D I I S O N O V I Q  i  aaooia  FIGURE 1  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT  0. 6. 000 12.000 18.000 24.000 30.000 36.000 42.000 48.000 54.000 60.000 TOTAL FIGURE 1  HISTTo  0. 0.  .5  2. 0 8. 7 17. 9 18. 4 18. 4 17. 3 16. 3 •5  COUNT FOR  0 0 1 4 17 35 36 36 34 32 1  1 A STANFORD  (EACH X= 1)  + +  +X + XXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX + XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  +x  196 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 6. 0000) STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES FOR THE TOTAL POPULATION  FIGURE  2  STANFORD D I A G N O S T I C RAW SCORES SUBGROUP C L O Z E PROCEDURE  HISTOGRAM  <1>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  15.000 16.000 17.000 18.000 19.000 20.000 21.000 22.000 23.000 24.0Q0 25.000 26.000 27.000 28.000 29.000 30.000 31.000 32.000 33.000 34.000 35.000 36.000 37.000 38.000 39.000 40.000 41.000 42.000 43.000 44.000 45.000 46.000 47.000 48.000 49.000 50.000 51.000 52.000 53.000 54.000 55.000 TOTAL  TREATMENT:CLOZE  1.6 0. 0. 1.6 0. 0. 0. 1.6 1.6 0. 1.6 1.6 4. 7 3. 1 1.6 0. 9.4 4.7 4.7 3. 1 4. 7 1.6 4.7 1.6 7. 8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0. 4.7 1.6 3. 1 1.6 6. 3 0. 4.7 4.7 1.6 3. 1  COUNT FOR  ,  1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 6 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 2 1 4 0 3 3 1 2 64  FOR  THE  PROCEDURE  1.STANFORD  (EACH  X=  +X + + +X + + +  +x +x +  +x +x + XXX + XX  +x  + +XXXXXX + XXX + XXX + XX + XXX  +x  + XXX +X +XXXXX  +x +x +x +x +x  + + XXX  +x +xx +x  + XXXX + + XXX + XXX  +x  + XX (INTERVAL. WIDTH =  1 . 0000)  FIGURE  2  HISTOGRAM  <1>  MIDPOINT  HIST%  0.  0.  6. 000  TREATMENT:CLOZE COUNT 0  FOR  PROCEDURE  1.STANFORD  0.  0  0.  0  18.000  3. 1  2  + XX  24.000  6. 3  4  + XXXX  30.000  23. 4  15  +XXXXXXXXX  3 6 . 0 0 0  20. 3  13  +XXXXXXXXXXXXX  xxxxxx  42.000  15. 6  10  +XXXXXXXXXX  48.000  17. 2  11  +XXXXXXXXXXX  54.000  14. 1  9  +XXXXXXXXX  0  +  0.  TOTAL FIGURE  64 2  X=  + + +  12.000  60.000  (EACH  (INTERVAL  STANFORD  DIAGNOSTIC  SUBGROUP  CLOZE  RAW  PROCEDURE  WIDTH SCORES  FOR  THE  FIGURE  3 STANFORD D I A G N O S T I C SUBGROUP B.O.P.P.  HISTOGRAM  <2>  MIDPOINT  HIS1%  RAW  THE  TREATMENT:B.0.P.P. COUNT FOR  19.000  1.5  1  20.000  0.  0  21.000  1.5  1  +X + +X  22.000  1. 5  1  + x  23.000  0.  0  +  24.000  1. 5  1  +x  25.000  1.5  1  + x  26.000  6.0  4  + XXXX  27.000  1.5  1  +x  28.000  4. 5  3  29.000  4. 5  3  30.000  4.5  3  31.000  4. 5  3  + XXX + XXX + XXX + XXX  32.000  1. 5  1  +x  33.000  0*  0  1.STANFORD  34.000  3.0  2  35.000  0.  0  36.000  7. 5  5  37.000  3.0  2  + + XX + +XXXXX + XX  38.000  1.5  1  +x  39.000  3.0  2  + XX  40.000  1. 5  1  +x  41.000  3.0  2  + XX  42.000  1. 5  1  +x  43.000  0.  0  +  1. 5  1  +x  45.000  6. 0  4  + XXXX  46.000  1.5  1  +x  47.000  3.0  2  48.000  3.0  2  + XX + XX  49.000  1.5  1  +x  50.000  4.5  3  51.000  6. 0  4  52.000  6.0  4  53.000  3.0  2  + XXX + XXXX + XXXX + XX + XX  54.000  3.0  2  55.000  1.5  1  +x  56.000  1. 5  1  +x  67  (EACH  X=  .  44.000  TOTAL  S C O R E S FOR  (INTERVAL  WIDTH =  1.0000)  FIGURE 3  HISTOGRAM  <2> TREATMENT:B.0.P.P.  MIDPOINT  EISH%  0. 6. 000 12. 000 18. 000 24. 000 30. 000 36. 000 42. 000 48. 000 54. 000 60. 000  0. 0. 0. 1. 5 11. 9 20. 9 14. 9 10. 4 19. 4 20. 9 0.  COUNT FOR 1.STANFORD 0 0 0 1 8 14 10 7 13 14 0  (EACH X=  + + +  +X +XXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX +  TOTAL 67 . (INTERVAL WIDTH = 6.0000) FIGURE 3 STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES FOR THE SUBGROUP B.O.P.P.  FIGURE  4  STANFORD  DIAGNOSTIC  SUBGROUP  "INSTANT"  HISTOGRAM  <3>  MIDPOINT  EISH%  TREATMENT:"INSTA NT" COUNT  FOR  1.5  1  +X  18.000  1. 5  1  +x  19.000  0.  0  20.000  0.  0  + +  9.000  RAW  21.000  1.5  1  +x  22.000  0.  0  2 3 . 0 0 0  3. 1  2  + + XX  24.000  1. 5  1  + x  25.000  0.  0  +  1. 5  1  +x  27.000  4.6  3  28.000  0.  0  29.000  0.  0  + XXX + +  30.000  1. 5  1  +x  31.000  3. 1  2  32.000  0.  0  33.000  3. 1  2  + XX + + XX  34.000  1. 5  1  +x  35.000  1.5  1  +x  36.000  4. 6  3  37.000  7. 7  5  + XXX +XXXXX  38.000  1.5  1  +x  3. 1  2  40.000  7.7  5  4 1 . 0 0 0  7. 7  5  4 2 . 0 0 0  3. 1  2  + XX +XXXXX +XXXXX + XX  43.00 0  1.5  1  +x  44.000  6.2  4  45.000  4. 6  3  + XXXX + XXX  46.000  1. 5  1  +x  47.000  4. 6  3  + XXX  48.000  1.5  1  +x  4 9 . 0 0 0  0.  0  50.000  3. 1  2  + + XX  51.000  1.5  1  +x  52.000  0.  0  53.000  3. 1  2  5 4 . 0 0 0  6. 2  4  + + XX + XXXX  55.000  1.5  1  +x  56.000  1. 5  1  +x  57.000  0.  0  +  5 8 . 0 0 0  1. 5  1  +x  TOTAL  65  FOR  THE  B . C . P . P .  1. S T A N F O R D  26.000  3 9 . 0 0 0  SCORES  B . O . P . P .  (INTERVAL  WIDTH  (EACH  =  X=  1.0000)  FIGURE  4  HISTOGRAM  < 3 > TREATMENT: "INSTANT"  MIDPOINT  HIST%  COUNT FOR  B.-O.P.P.  1.STANFORD  (EACH  0.  0.  0  6. 000  0.  0  + +  12. 000  1. 5  1  +x  18. 000  1. 5  1 + x  24. 000  7. 7  5  30. 000  9: 2  6  36. 000  20. 0  13  +XXXXX +XXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXX •  42. 000  29. 2  19  +XXX7xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  48. 000  15. 4  10  54. 000  13. 8  9  +XXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXX  60. 000  1. 5  1  +x  TOTAL FIGURE  4 STANFORD SUBGROUP  X=  65 ( I N T E R V A L WIDTH = 6 . 0 0 0 0 ) D I A G N O S T I C RAW SCORES FOR T H E "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  FIGURE 5 PROCEDURE MIDPOINT 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000 22.000 24.000 26.000 28.000 30.000 32.000 34.000 36.000 38.000 40.000 42.000 44.000 46.000 48.000 50.000 52.000 54.000 56.000 58.000 60.000 62.000 64.000 66.000 68.000 70.000 72.000 TOTAL  PERCENT SCORES FOR THE GROUP CLOZE HIST% 1.6 0. 1.6 0. 3. 1 3. 1 3. 1 3. 1 3. 1 1. 6 1.6 9.4 1.6 4.7 14. 1 6. 3 3. 1 4.7 9.4 4.7 3. 1 0. 6.3 3. 1 3. 1 0. 0. 0. 3. 1 0. 0. 1.6  COUNT FOR 5.PERCENT 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 6 1 3 9 4 2 3 6 3 2 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 64  (EACH X= 1)  + X  + + X  + + XX  + 7J + XX + XX + XX  +x +x +XXXXXX  +x  + XXX  +XXXXXXXXX + XXXX + XX + XXX  +XXXXXX + XXX + XX  + + XXXX + XX + XX  + + + +XX + +  +x (INTERVAL WIDTH = 2.0000)  FIGURE  5  HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT  0. 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 100.00 TOTAL FIGURE 5  <1>  T R E A T M E N T : C L O Z E PROCEDURE  HIST7c COUNT FOR 5.PERCENT (EACH 0. 0 + 3. 1 2 + XX 12.5 8 +XXXXXXXX 17. 2 1 1 +XXXXXXXXXXX 32. 8 21 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 23. 4 15 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 6. 3 4 + XXXX 4. 7 3 + XXX 0. 0 + 0. 0 + 0. 0 + 64  (INTERVAL  WIDTH = 10.000) CLOZE  P E R C E N T SCORES FOR T H E GROUP PROCEDURE  71  FIGURE MIDPOINT 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000 22.000 24.000 26.000 28.000 30.000 32.000 34.000 36.000 38.000 40.000 42.000 44.000 46.000 48.000 50.000 52.000 54.000 56.000 58.000 60.000 62.000 64.000 66.000 68.000 70.000 72.000 74.000 76.000 78.000 80.000 82.000 84.000 86,000 88.000 90.000 92.000 94.000 TOTAL  6  PERCENT HIST* 1. 5 0. 3.0 1.5 1. 5 1. 5 0. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0. 7. 5 3.0 3.0 0. 4. 5 4. 5 3.0 1.5 4. 5 1.5 3.0 1.5 4. 5 0. 7.5 3.0 3. 0 1. 5 1.5 6. 0 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.0 0. 0. 3.0 0. 1.5  SCORES  FOR  COUNT FOR  THE  GROUP  5.PERCENT  B.O.P.P. (EACH X=  1)  1 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 5 2 2 0 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 0 5  +X + + XX +x +x +x + + XX + XX + XX + XX + +XXXXX + XX + XX + + XXX + XXX + XX +x + XXX +x + XX +x + XXX + +XXXXX 2 + XX 2 + XX 1 1 +x 4 + XXXX 2 + XX 2 + XX 1 +x 2 + XX 0 + 0 + 2 + XX 0 + 1 +x  67  (INTERVAL  WIDTH = 2 . 0 0 0 0 )  II  x  O  i  O  04  o  .  •  w  o  u  «  w  n m EC  EH 55  X  pq P5  CM • O  ra •* H SE  Cu  X  X  X  X  P O K CO W  x  X  X  £S  X  X  X  M  X  X  X  X  X  S=»  H  X  PS  X  X  x  x  x  x  x  w «  P3 O  X X X  X X X  X X X  X X X  X X X  X X X  X X X  E-iO B (i, H  P  X  »  X  x  IJH  X  X  « *  x  H «C  X  X X  x i x x x x x x x x  cn  + + + + + + + + + + +  w «  t -  T-  VD  V-  O  EH  6« EH  in  .  S3  mincriaaia-d-sin .  .  .  .  r-  1-  o r - r- r- cn  H  .  .  .  .  T-  r- r-  r- o vo  r-  . VD  w  .  U  o  «  W VD  SE VD  PS  w  O  H  It.  O  EH  U  C/l  u  EH  A CN V  P-i  EH O H  in  s  03  X  H  EH  W  .  «- o  «:  t  PJ  EH S5 H O PJ O  H  H  33  53  O O O O  .  H • J P S «33 P  *-CNm:*mvDr^COCrtr-  E H ^ H  O  O O O O  O O O O  O O O O  O O O O  O O O O  O O O O  O O O O  O O O O  O O  i O  O  EH O  O H  73  FIGURE  7  PERCENT  SCORES  "INSTANT" MIDPOINT  HIST*  FOR  COUNT  FOR  10.000  3. 1  2  +XX  12.000  6.2  4  + XXXX  14.000  0.  0  16.000  0.  0  + +  18.000  3. 1  2  + XX  20.  0.  0  +  22.000  1. 5  1  +x  24.000  0.  0  000  26.000  0.  0  + +  2 8 . 0 0 0  4.6  3  + XXX  30.000  0.  0  +  32.000  4. 6  3  + XXX  3 4 . 0 0 0  4. 6  3  + XXX  36.000  1.5  1  +x  38.000  1.5  1  +x  40.000  1.5  1  +x  42.000  0.  0  +  4 4 . 0 0 0  4.6  3  + XXX  46.000  0.  0  48.000  0.  0  + +  50.000  4. 6  3  + XXX  52.000  6. 2  4  + XXXX  54.000  4.6  3  + XXX  56.000  6. 2  4  + XXXX  58.000  6. 2  4  + XXXX  60.000  3. 1  2  + XX  62.000  0.  0  +  6 4 . 0 0 0  3. 1  2  + XX  GROUP  5.PERCENT  66.000  9.2  6  +XXXXXX  6 8 . 0 0 0  3. 1  2  + XX  70.000  4.6  3  + XXX  7 2 . 0 0 0  1.5  1  + x  74.000  1. 5  1  +x  76.000  1.5  1  +x  78.000  3.1  2  + XX  80.000  1.5  1  +x  82.000  0.  0  +  84.000  1. 5  1  +x  86.000  0.  0  +  88.000  1.5  1  +x  TOTAL  THE  B . O . P . P .  65  (INTERVAL  WIDTH  (EACH  =  X=  1)  2.0000)  74  FIGURE 7  HISTOGRAM  <3> TREATMENT:"INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  MIDPOINT  HIST*  0. 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 100.00 TOTAL FIGURE 7  0. 9. 2 4. 6 13. 8 9. 2 15. 4 18. 5 20. 0 7. 7 1. 5 0.  COUNT FOR 5.PERCENT 0 6 3 9 6 10 12 13 5 1 0  (EACH X= 1)  +  +XXXXXX + XXX +XXXXXXXXX +XXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXXXXXXXXXX +XXXXX +x +  65 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 10.000) PERCENT SCORES FOR THE GROUP "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  75  FIGURE 8 SCATTERGRAM OF CLOZE PROCEDDRE AND STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW o o  o  o  UJ  O -j  i I  a  n rt. »5 CO  o a  o  O  1  O  CO *v O  1  SCORES  SCORES o o  o o  o o  •  1 1 1  tl\ • UN  1 l  X. r> O H  »  t  —»  UJ  o a  o  PERCENT  1 1 1 1  a  1  Of o O *l  et 5*»* UL  a « a  UJ »—  t ) —.  • < x  ai O CJ ac — O  o t  lA  O  ^ •m o  u. uu T  a T  z<  a *  O  UJ  tA  t*  r-i  u.  T <  —J  •A  — i . u. "  *  j  •  O  o•  o o • •#  o  o •  o  o •  o o  o a  o o  o o  o  76  FIGURE  9  SCATTERGRAH  STANFORD  OF  D I A G N O S T I C RAW o  •O  o  O  o  B.O.P.P.  PERCENT  SCORES  SCORES o vn  o co  o  o +  AND  77  FIGURE  10  SCATTERGRAM  OF  "INSTANT"  SCORES AND STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW  B.O.P.P. PERCENT SCORES o  o  •o  a  o  rt  or  OS  •  ! ! [  a  o.  o  n  m t  •  m i  i i  •  -0 m  i  •  •  I •  2 T _*  o  o  i  •  X.  • CO  i i i i  a-  •m°i T»  O  o*  o  oc o  «•>  Ui  tx  < 7 o Q « f\j  M>  a  n u.  t/l UJ  hu M  i  i •  O N U- •  i  •  i i i i  y </»  »- z  i  < * o  i  O o at O *  i i  UJ O  <M  w  1• I  o  i  rt at o u_  * «*  N»  • /I  •  •  —*  rj *  * <•» «* >u  UJ -J  *  — t.»  O  o• CO  o  o  m  co -#  •  •  AJ  O  m• m -r  o • ao  >  70  FIGURE  11  PREDICTED  PROCEDURE,  REGRESSION  B.O.P.P. AND  L I N E S FOR  "INSTANT"  GROUPS  B.O.P.P.  CLOZE  79  CHAPTER IV  ANALYSTS OF DATA, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND  IMPLICATIONS,  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.  Research_Questions  1.  Will  the cloze  Procedure  procedure,  and  Procedure  the  the Beginning of the  "instant"  be p o s i t i v e l y  Page  B e g i n n i n g o f t h e Page  correlated  with the Stanford  Diagnostic ?  2.  Are t h e s c o r e s y i e l d e d Beginning  of  the  by t h e c l o z e  Page P r o c e d u r e  procedure,  the  and t h e " i n s t a n t "  B e g i n n i n g o f t h e Page P r o c e d u r e e q u i v a l e n t ?  3.  What i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e readability Diagnostic cloze  4.  Is  for  between t h e F r y  the  passage  grade e q u i v a l e n t  and  f o r 40  estimate the  percent  of  Stanford on  the  between  the  procedure?  there  performance Stanford  a  significant  levels  Diagnostic,  of  difference  males the  and cloze  females  on  the  procedure,  the  80  B.O.P.P. or the " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P.?  T e s t s of Research The  Questions  answer to question one was found  f o r a l l t h r e e groups. cloze  procedure  When the percent  the  Stanford D i a g n o s t i c ^ .53,  A  the  respective  the  raw  "instant"  scores  of  to  be  of 40 percent on the c l o z e procedure  to be approximately B.O.P.P. and  45  on the  correlations  answer to guestion two was found  score  on the  .54,  (Table X)  and .67 were found. The  scores  B.O.P.P. and  B.O.P.P. were c o r r e l a t e d with  t o be p o s i t i v e  equivalent percent  to  on  50  the  false.  was found  percent  on the  "instant"  B.O.P.P.  (Table VIII) In answer to g u e s t i o n t h r e e , a d i f f e r e n c e was found between the  two  estimates  Readability  Graph  of  estimated  the  passage t o be at t h e  level.  Diagnostic  , estimated t o be e g u i v a l e n t t o 40 percent on  cloze  procedure,  grade  The F r y  grade 7.5  the  The  readability.  was  score  found  to  comparisons were made with raw scores converted  t o grade e g u i v a l e n t s ) .  the B.O.P.P. and " i n s t a n t " 10.1  and  expected  10.1  eguivalents  these  for  which  the  Stanford  10.1 were  (when then  Grade e g u i v a l e n t s f o r  No  scores  the  be  B.O.P.P. were  respectively.  between  on  as  found  to  be  d i f f e r e n c e could be the  grade  B.O.P.P. and  score  "instant"  8  B.O.P.P. s c o r e s were obtained c l o z e procedure s c o r e s . The negative*  answer  to  through a comparison  (Figure XI, Table  question  (Tables VI - VII)  four*  was  1  with  XIII) found  to be  82  TABLE I  MEAN  AND  SCORES  STANDARD FOR  DEVIATION  GROUPS  CLOZE  OF  STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC  PROCEDURE,  B.O.P.P. AND  "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  GROUP  MEAN  STANDARD DEVIATION  CLOZE PROCEDURE  38.25  9.97  B.O.P.P.  39.19  10.39  "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  39.71  10.08  83  TABLE I I  MEAN  AND  STANDARD  DEVIATION  SCORES FOR MALE AND FEMALE  OF  STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC  POPULATIONS.  SEX  MEAN  STANDARD DEVIATION  MALE  39.30  10. 18  FEMALE  38.77  10.11  84  TABLE I I I  ANOVA  —  SCORES  EFFECTS FOR  THE  OF  SEX  TOTAL  ON STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC  POPULATION  AND  GROUPS  MEAN CLOZE  PROCEDURE, B.O.P.P. AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  TEST  MEAN SQUARE  CLOZE  F-STATISTIC  SIGNIFICANCE  .31921  .31576  9554  B. 0. P.P.  .40275  .36716  . 9519  "INSTANT"  25.615  .24873  6197  13546  .7132  PROCEDURE  B.0.P.P.  STANFORD  13.93  DIAGNOSTIC  S i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l = .05 No  significant  level.  sex  differences  were found a t the .05  TABLE IV  DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY SEX  GROUP  FEMALE  TOTAL  106  90  196  CLOZE PROCEDURE  35  29  64  B.O.P.P.  33  34  67  "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  38  27  65  STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC  MALE  86  TABLE V  MEAN AND  STANDARD  DEVIATION  FOR  GROUPS CLOZE PROCEDURE, B.O.P.P-  GROUP  PERCENT  SCORES  FOR  AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  MEAN  STANDARD DEVIATION  CLOZE PROCEDURE  39.391  12.966  B.O.P.P.  53. 567  20.459  "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  49.477  20.508  87  TABLE VI  CELL  AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC  SCORES r  AND  B.O.P.P.  CLOZE  PROCEDURE,  B.O.P.P. AND  "INSTANT"  PERCENT SCORES  TEST  MALE  FEMALE  39.30  38.77  39-06  CLOZE PROCEDURE  40.45  38.51  39.39  B.O.P.P.  56.70  50.53  53.56  "INSTANT"  51.03  47.30  49.48  STANFORD  RAW  MARGINAL MEAN  DIAGNOSTIC  88  TABLE VII  SUMMARY RAW  OF  ANOVA EFFECTS OF SEX ON STANFORD  SCORES,  ANE  CLOZE  "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  TEST  ,  B.O.P.P.  AND  PERCENT SCORES .  MEAN SQUARES  STANFORD  PROCEDURE  DIAGNOSTIC  FrSTATISTIC  SIGNIFICANCE  13.94  .13546  .7132  59.319  .34755  .5576  DIAGNOSTIC  CLOZE PROCEDURE  B.O.P.P.  637.01  "INSTANT"  219.61  1.5341  .2199  .51825  .4743  B.O.P.P.  S i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l = .05 No  significant  level.  sex  differences  were found at the .05  89  TABLE VIII  ESTIMATED INSTRUCTIONAL RANGE EQUIVALENCIES CLOZE PROCEDURE, E.O.P.P.  GROUP  LOWER LIMIT  FOR  GROUPS  AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P.  UPPER LIMIT  LOWER LIMIT GRADE EQUIVALENT  CLOZE PROCEDURE  40%  59%  10.1%  B.O.P.P.  50%  80%  10. 1%  "INSTANT"  45%  68%  10.1%  B.0.P.P.  90  TABLE  ESTIMATED B. 0. P. P. FROM  EQUIVALENCY AND  STANFORD  IX  TABLE  " I N S T A N T " B .O.P.P. D I A G N O S T I C RAW  FOR  CLOZE  SCORES  PROCEDURE,  AS  PREDICTED  SCORES.  STANFORD  STANFORD  CLOZE  B.O.P.Pi  "INSTANT"  DIAGNOSTIC  DIAGNOSTIC  PROCEDURE  PERCENT  B.O.P.P.  RAW  GRADE  PERCENT  SCORE  PERCENT  SCORE  SCORE  SCORE  SCORE  25  7. 1  8  2  5  30  8. 3  20  20  20  35  9. 5  32  40  35  40  10. 5  44  57  50  45  12. 1  56  75  65  50  GRADUATE  68  94  80  55  GRADUATE  80  —  96  60  GRADUATE  92  —  —  TABLE X  INTERCORRELATIONS OF VARIABLES  VARIABLE  STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC  STANFORD  CLOZE  DIAGNOSTIC  PROCEDURE  1.00  .5413  B.O.P.P.  .5341  "INSTANT B.O.P.P.  .6703  TABLE XI  SIGNIFICANCE OF CORRELATIONS OF ALL VARIABLES  VARIABLE  STANFORD  STANFORD  CLOZE  DIAGNOSTIC  PROCEDURE  .00  .00  B.O.P.P.  B.O.P.P.  .00  DIAGNOSTIC  S i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l = .05 A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s are h i g h l y  "INSTANT"  significant.  .00  TABLE  GRADE  EQUIVALENTS  XII  C O R R E S P O N D I N G TO  STANFORD  DIAGNOSTIC  TEST 1 Reading Comprehension Total Raw Score  Equivalent  60 59 58 57 56  GRAD GRAD GRAD GRAD GRAD  30 29 28 27 26  8.3 8.1 7.8 7.6 7.4  55 54 53 52 51  GRAD GRAD GRAD GRAD GRAD  25 24 23 22 21  7.1 6.9 6.6 6.4 6.1  50 49 48 47 46  GRAD GRAD GRAD GRAD 12.7  20 19 18 17 16  5.8 5.4 5.1 4.7 4.4  45  44 43 42 41  12.1 11.7 11.3 11.0 10.7  15 14 13 . 12 11  4.1 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.1  40 39 38 37 36  10.5 10.3 10.1 9.9 9.7  10 9  3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.4  35 34 33 32 31  9.5 9.3, 9.0 8.8 8.6  5  Grade  Raw Grade Score Equivalent  8  7  6  4 3 2 1  2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8  RAW S C O R E S  94  Summary T h i s r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e d the B.O.P.P. and  the  statistically Diagnostic  cloze  "instant"  B.O.P.P. were  positively correlated  which  was  procedure,  with  the  the a l l  Stanford  used as the anchor t e s t .  Of t h e  three t e s t s , t h e " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. was found t o be t h e most h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with t h e Stanford Although  the  B.O.P.P.  and  Diagnostic.  " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P.  y i e l d e d c o n s i d e r a b l y higher percentage scores  than  c l o z e procedure, the high c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l t e s t  the  scores  with t h e anchor t e s t seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t many of the skills  required  to  complete  B.O.P.P. and " i n s t a n t " required higher  complete  scores  on  the the  that  easier tasks; l i k e l y words  B.O.P.P. were  to  B.O.P.P. i n d i c a t e d  the  cloze also  procedure, the  Stanford D i a g n o s t i c * B.O.P.P.  students  and  found  these  c l u e s to the t o t a l word.  the high c o r r e l a t i o n o f both the B.O.P.P. and B.O.P.P. t o  the Stanford_piagnqstic  were v a l i d measures f o r a s s e s s i n g  as  estimated  be  partial However,  "instant"  suggested that both  l e v e l of  the  given  by the F r y R e a d a b i l i t y Graph and  the r e a d a b i l i t y of the same passage as estimated Stanford  to  readability.  When comparing the r e a d a b i l i t y passage  The  "instant"  due t o t h e l a r g e number of  which provided  skills  by t h e  D i a g n o s t i c grade score e g u i v a l e n t t o 40 percent  on t h e c l o z e procedure, i t appeared at f i r s t glance  that  95  the  readability  estimates  However, t h i s study adjustments  were  were  contended that made  quite when  different.  the  necessary  to the r e a d a b i l i t y s c o r e s , both  estimates  o f r e a d a b i l i t y were v i r t u a l l y the same.  argument  was based on the f a c t t h a t the Fry R e a d a b i l i t y  Graph  was  formulated  using  the  50  to  This  75  percent  c r i t e r i o n on the McCall Crabbs Test Lessons , t h i s  being  the  cloze  frustration  to  instructional  level;  The  procedure, on the other hand, was v a l i d a t e d a g a i n s t McCall  Crabbs  Test  Lessons using the 75 t o 90 percent  c r i t e r i o n , or the i n s t r u c t i o n a l Burmeister  (1974)  student's estimated one  to  to  independent  and  instructional  to be one to two years.  Further,  silent  reading  procedure  such  inflate  as  the  the grade  t o the p o i n t where the grade scores y i e l d e d were  (Burmeister  1974).  drop back a year  years  that t h i s  cloze  tests  , were known to  u s u a l l y i n d i c a t i v e of the  level;  was  years must be added to the Fry R e a d a b i l i t y  Stanford D i a g n o s t i c scores  levels  I t was f e l t  s c o r e before i t could be compared t o a score.  level;  s t a t e d that the d i f f e r e n c e between a  frustration  two  the  The  or  student's  Burmeister more  situation  to  then  frustration  suggested t h a t we must find  existed  the  instructional  where one t o two  were to be added to the Fry score to i n d i c a t e  instructional  level  l e v e l of the passage and one t o two  the years  were to be s u b t r a c t e d from the Stanford D i a g n o s t i c grade  96  s c o r e e q u i v a l e n t to 40 percent (this  +  the  cloze  procedure  study has s e t t l e d on an adjustment score of 1 1/2  years). found  on  When these c a l c u l a t i o n s were  complete  i t was  that the F r y Graph i n d i c a t e d the passage to be 7.5  1.5 = 9-0 while the S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c e q u i v a l e n t of  the 40 percent c l o z e procedure estimated t h e passage be  10.1  -  1.5  =  8.6  and  to  thus both gave r e l a t i v e l y  e q u i v a l e n t estimates of the passages r e a d a b i l i t y . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t male  and  results  found  female achievement on t h e Stanford  f o r the  Diagnostic  entire  results  procedure, percent  difference  population,  between  Diagnostic  the  Stanford  f o r any of the three groups, c l o z e  B.O.P.P. and " i n s t a n t "  B.O.P.P. or  f o r the  scores f o r these same three groups.  Discussion The  results  of  this  B.O.P.P. and the " i n s t a n t " readability  measures:  the necessary readability score  relatively  indicated  B.O.P.P.  The study  were  that  the  appropriate  a l s o showed that when  c a l c u l a t i o n s had been made t o both the F r y score  equivalent  estimated  study  and to  40  the r e a d a b i l i t y the same.  the  Stanfgrd^Diagnostic  percent, l e v e l of  then the  both passage  grade  measures to  be  The study, however, was l i m i t e d i n  97  that  only one  passage was  Several  problems  tested.  were  experienced  in  using  S t a n f o r d . D i a g n o s t i c which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between at the lower end between  those  the  top  end  of  the s c a l e .  e g u i v a l e n t s were given only to the end of and  all  higher  Unfortunately  all  anyone  scores  were  grade  designated  In the f i r s t  attempts  scoring  above  assigned  resulted in  strong  within  analyse  the the  grade level  ceiling  13.5  effects  12.9 .  level  and  it  ( i f not the grade score e g u i v a l e n t ) . well  and was  appeared  scores which  at l e a s t give a d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c o r e s at the  differentiated  the  T h i s procedure  a d v i s a b l e to r e c a l c u l a t e the data using raw  end,  "grad".  c a l c u l a t i o n s were made u s i n g grade scores  arbitrarily  would  twelve  as  to  than Grade  , 28 percent of the p o p u l a t i o n f e l l  t h i s category. data  scores  of the s c a l e much more e f f i c i e n t l y at  the  A  test  top that  between s c o r e s at both  ends of the  s c a l e would c e r t a i n l y have been a p r e f e r a b l e  instrument,  as the d i s t r i b u t i o n skewed i n e i t h e r No f o r any  sex  would have been l e s s  d i f f e r e n c e s of any  the  to  be  direction. s i g n i f i c a n c e were found  of the groups but c o n t r a r y to  expected,  likely  males  scored  what  higher,  s i g n i f i c a n t l y so, f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s .  is  usually  although  not  98  Conclusions  and I m p l i c a t i o n s .  The  correlation  B.O.P.P. percent  scores  Stanford  Diagnostic  higher,  than  the been  Stanford  of  B.O.P.P. and  with  was  the  shown  to  raw be  "instant"  score  on t h e  similar  t o , or  the c o r r e l a t i o n of the c l o z e procedure to Diagnostic*  recognized  as  The c l o z e procedure  a  valid  measure  had  long  of r e a d a b i l i t y  (Review of the L i t e r a t u r e , Chapter 2) and the r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e d  that  B.O.P.P. were a l s o v a l i d true  that the percent  to be higher was  very  the  B.O.P*P. and  measures of r e a d a b i l i t y *  scores  than those f o r the c l o z e  procedure.  B.O.P.P. and  "instant"  B.O.P.P.,  a c r i t i c i s m of Boyce  (1974),  a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , suggested t h a t i t gave  student  regular  a l l the  contextual  clues  available  B*O.P.P. and  "instant"  B.O.P.P. hold  promise; they have the advantage of the c l o z e that  they  measure  the  student's  to prepare and administer "instant"  i s very  B.O.P.P.,  a b i l i t y to deal reguired  these t e s t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y  i s considerably  f o r the c l o z e procedure. important as i t i n c r e a s e s  great  procedure  d i r e c t l y with the m a t e r i a l at hand but the time  reguired  in  reading*  The  in  This  l i k e l y t h e r e s u l t o f the c l u e s o f f e r e d by the  considering the  It i s  on both these t e s t s tended  many p a r t i a l words, but r a t h e r than being the  "instant"  less  than  the that  T h i s decrease i n time the  likelihood  that  99  such  a measure w i l l be used by the p r a c t i t i o n e r .  c o n c l u s i o n s , however, are only  one  study must  passage be  based  on  studies  These  involving  and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s made from such a  questioned.  Certainly  the  percentage  s c o r e s e s t a b l i s h i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l f o r both the B.O.P.P. and  "instant"  generalized  to  other  B.O.P.P. should materials  not  without  be  further  validation. For the passage s t u d i e d * Diagnostic  grade  c l o z e procedure,  the Fry Graph and S t a n f o r d  score e q u i v a l e n t to UO percent on the appeared  to  yield  almost  r e a d a b i l i t y s c o r e s once p r e v i o u s l y mentioned were made. scope other  to  the same adjustments  Once again the study was not broad enough i n allow  this  i n f o r m a t i o n to be g e n e r a l i z e d t o  passages.  Recommendations, f o r Future;Study  1.  Since the study showed promising c o r r e l a t i o n between the Stanford D i a g n o s t i c and "instant"  B.O.P.P.,  u s i n g a v a r i e t y of  both  the  B.O.P.P. and  the study should be r e p l i c a t e d passages  and  further,  several  d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s should be i n v o l v e d i n the new study.  100  2.  Various  cloze  s e l e c t e d should  procedure  forms  f o r each passage  be sampled i n order t o  ensure  that  the passage chosen i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .  3.  The  strip  of  paper used to make t h e B.O.P.P. and  " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. should  be placed i n t h e middle of  the page and at the r i g h t hand The a  side  of  the  page.  r e s u l t i n g passages could then be administered t o sample p o p u l a t i o n t o ensure t h a t t h e B.O.P.P. and  " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. are no than  tests  created  by  more  or  less  difficult  using middle or end o f the  page d e l e t i o n s .  4.  Since t h e S t a n f o r d ; D i a g n o s t i c does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e w e l l between scores a t the top end of the s c a l e since  a l a r g e percentage o f s c o r e s f e l l  range i t i s recommended t h a t a new  and  within t h i s  anchor  test  be  employed.  5.  More  research  i s r e g u i r e d t o determine i f the F r y  r e a d a b i l i t y score plus 1 . 5 years grade  score  T h i s would passages  on have  i s egual  t o the  a new anchor t e s t minus 1 . 5 y e a r s . to  be  established  over  and with s e v e r a l s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s  several before  the v a l i d i t y of such a proposal could be v e r i f i e d .  101  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Anderson, J .  Research  on  I. D. Bracken  and  reading  around  ability  comprehension  in  E i Malmguist (eds), the  world..  reading. Improving  Proceedings o f  the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading A s s o c i a t i o n  , 1971, 115 -  121.  Anderson,  J.  A  comprehension  technique and  for  readability;  measuring  reading  E n g l i s h Language  Teaching, 1971, 25 , 178 - 182.  Asher,  S. R. and  others.  C h i l d r e n ' s comprehension of  high,and low - i n t e r e s t m a t e r i a l and a comparison of two c l o z e s c o r i n g methods, t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t No. 1976  U^j.  (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e ED 134939)  (Abstract)  102  B e i l , D.  The emperor's new c l o z e .  1977, 2 0  Betts,  x  Journal  of Reading,  7, 601 - 6 0 4 .  E. A.  Foundations of r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n .  York: American  Bormuth, J . R.  New  Book Company, 1 9 5 4 .  Cloze as a measure o f r e a d a b i l i t y ;  IRA  Conference Proceedings, 1 9 6 3 , 8 , 131 - 134.  Bormuth,  J . R.  tests.  Experimental  applications  of  cloze  I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading_Association  Conference,. 1964, 9 , 303 - 3 0 6 .  Bormuth,  j . R.  methods; Association,  Comparisons  among  cloze t e s t scoring  Proceedings o f . t h e l n t e r n a t i o n a l 196 5, JO , 283 - 2 86.  Reading  103  Bormuth,  J . R.  Readability:  Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1966, 1  Bormuth, J . R. comprehension  Comparable test  a new approach.  Reading  , 79 - 132.  cloze scores.  and  multiple-choice  J o u r n a l of Reading,  1967, 10 , 5 , 291 - 299.  Bormuth,  J . R.  reference  Cloze  test  scores.  Measurement, 1968, 5 , 3  Bormuth,  J . R.  The  cloze  readability:  criterion  J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l 189 -, 196.  readability  procedure,  Elementary E n g l i s h , 196 8b , 45 , 4 29 - 436.  Bormuth,  J . R.  Cloze t e s t s and reading  Reading, Research Q u a r t e r l y ,  comprehension.  1969, 4 , 358 - 365.  104  Bormuth,  J . R.  final  Development of r e a d a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s ,  Report.  U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago*  Document Reproduction  Bortnick,  R., S  S e r v i c e No.  Lopardo,  classroom.  1974.  S e r v i c e No.  ED 094327)  Bortnick,  R., &  G.  (ERIC.  Lopardo,  G.  1969b .  (ERIC  ED 029 166)  A Case f o r c l o z e i n t h e Document  The  multi-purpose classroom t o o l .  Reproduction  c l o z e procedure: a  Reading Improvement,  1976, J 3 , 113 - 117.  Boyce,  M.  w.  Some d i f f i c u l t i e s  i n using  procedures t o assess r e a d a b i l i t y .  1974.  Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No.  ED 110921)  Boyce,  M. W.  (ERIC.  Some comment on the use o f t h e c l o z e f o r  classroom mathematics m a t e r i a l s . Mathematics^  cloze  1978, 7 8 , 1, 9 - 1 2 .  School Science and  105  Burnt e i s t e r ,  L. E.  R e a d i n g s t r a t e q i e s f o r secondary  school teachers.  Menlo P a r k , C a l i f o r n i a :  W e s l e y P u b l i s h i n g Co.,  C a r v e r , P.. P. reading and  Measuring  -  1974.  the primary  storage technigue*  cloze.  Addison  effect of  understanding  reading:  judgements,  Journal of Educational.Behaviour  , 1974,  6 , 249 - 256.  Cohen*  J . H.  The  effect  c l o z e t e s t performance* 12  Culhane,  f  o f c o n t e n t a r e a m a t e r i a l on J o u r n a l of,Reading  ,  1976,  247.  F. G.  Cloze  leading_Teacher  C u n n i n g h a m , J . W., limited-cloze Behaviour,  procedure  and  comprehension.  , F e b . 1970, 23 , 410 - 413.  S  Cunningham,  P. M.  procedure*  1978, 10 , 211 - 2 1 3 .  Validating  Journal of  a  Reading  106  Daines, D., 6 Mason, L. readability  graphs.  A comparison of placement  test  j o u r n a l o f Reading , 1972, 1.5 ,  597.  Dale,  E., 5  Chall,  readability.  J . S.  A  Formula  for predicting  Educational Research:Bulletin  ,  19 48,  48 , 11 - 20 and 28.  Dishner,  E. K.  content  The c l o z e procedure: a v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r  teachers.  1973  Reproduction S e r v i c e No.  E n t i n , E. B., 5 K l a r e , G. R. of  (ERIC.  Document  ED 123602)  Some i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s  r e a d a b i l i t y * c l o z e and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e scores on  a reading  comprehension  test.  J o u r n a l o f Reading  Behaviour, 1978, ±0 , 4 , 417 - 434.  F a r r i s , I . S.  A comparison of c l o z e and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  procedures f o r measuring r e a d i n g 1975.  (ERIC.  Document  Document ED 120666)  comprehension;  Reproduction  (Abstract)  S e r v i c e No.  107  F r y , E. B.  A  readability  J o u r n a l , o f Reading, 575  -  Fry's  validity  and  l e a d i n g Dec.  Galloway, P. textbooks*  L. E.  "cloze". 137  Hafner,  -  April  that  1968,  2.1  saves ,  time.  513-516,  578.  Fry, E. B.  Hafner,  formula  How  readability extension 1979, 21  graph:  to  level  clarifications, 17,  J o u r n a l of  , 3 , 242 - 252.  secondary s t u d e n t s and  J o u r n a l of Reading  teachers  read  , 1973, J 7 , 216.  R e l a t i o n s h i p s of v a r i o u s measures to the National ReadingConferehce  , 1964,  J3  ,  145.  L. E.  Implications of cloze.  Conference  , 196 5, J.4 , 151 - 158.  Nationa1_Reading  108  H a n s e l l , T. S.  Readability, syntactic  and g e n e r a t i v e semantics.  transformations,  J o u r n a l of Heading,  19 7 6 ,  19 , 557.  Jefferson,  G. L. J r .  Lexical  and s t r u c t u r a l items as  p r e d i c t o r s of r e a d a b i l i t y f o r high and readers.  , 1 9 7 1 , 172 - 178.  Jones, M. B, & P i k u l s k i , E. C. J o u r n a l of Reading  E. R.  The c l o z e procedure: a, survey of the 1971.  S e r v i c e No.  ED 050893)  K.  formulas.  C l o z e f o r the classroom.  , 1 9 7 4 , JT7 , 6 , 432 - 438.  research.  Keonk,  ability  Nineteenth Yearbook o f the N a t i o n a l  Reading Conference  Jongsma,  low  Another  (ERIC.  practical  Document  note  J o u r n a l „of Reading,  on  Reproduction  readability  1 9 7 1 , 1.5 , 2 0 3 .  109  Kirby,  C.  Using the c l o z e procedure  technigue. Reproduction  Klare,  1968.  April  G. R.  S e r v i c e No.  (ERIC.  The measurement of R e a d a b i l i t y ^  Assessing  G. R.  A  readability 1976,  McCabe,  8  ,  P. P.  readability.  Ames,  1963.  Reading  Research  1 9 7 5 , 1.0 , 6 2 - 1 0 0 .  Quarterly  Klare,  Document  ED 0 1 9 2 0 2 )  Iowa: Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,  K l a r e , G. R.  as a t e s t i n g  second  formulas.  129 -  look  at  the  validity  J o u r n a l of Reading  of  Behaviour,  152.  Give  readers  a  B.O.P.P.  Reading, Dec. 1 9 7 9 , 2 3 , 3 , 1 9 9 .  J o u r n a l of  110  MacGinitie,  W. H.  Contextual  prose paragraphs.  McKenna, M.  constraint  J o u r n a l _ o f Psychology,  Synonymic versus verbatim  c l o z e procedure.  in  1961, 51. .  scoring  J o u r n a l of Reading  english  of  the  , 1976, 20 , 2,  141 - 143.  McLaughlin,  G. H.  formula.  P. C.  uses. No.  a new  readability  1969, V2 , 63 9.  readability  formulas.  and  Reading,  , S p r i n g 1975, 12 , 1 , 52 - 58.  The c l o z e procedure: l a t e s t r e s e a r c h and  1976. ED  -  P r e d i c t i v e powers of m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e  derived  Improvement  Myers,  grading  J o u r n a l of Reading,  M i l l e r , L. R. cloze  Smog  123556)  (ERIC.  Document  Reproduction S e r v i c e  111  Oiler,  J . w.  Jr.  English.  Cloze;  1975.  Service  No.  ED  A. A., 5  Panackal,  multiple-choice  discourse  (ERIC. 107144)  Heft,  Document  C.  S.  technigue:  ,  932.  Pauk,  917  W.  A  Journal  Pennock,  -  practical  of Reading,  C. D.  A l b e r t a .Journal 1  ,  Pennock,  30  -  C.  technique and  validity. 1978,  Measurement.  on r e a d a b i l i t y  1 9 6 9 , JI3 ,  38  formulas.  207.  instructional  of Educational  and  Research.  materials. 1 9 7 3 , J. 9  36.  D.  readability. 39.  note  Selecting  Cloze  reliability  and P s y c h o l o g i c a l  ,  Reproduction  (Abstract)  Educational 4  and a p p r o x i m a t i o n s t o  The  cloze  test  lMiisk_£aa£terry  A  for 1973, 5  assessing ,  4 ,  3 5 -  ,  112  Peterson,  J . and  others.  V a l i d a t i o n o f the c l o z e  procedure as a measure o f r e a d a b i l i t y  with  high  s c h o o l , trade school and c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n s . {ERIC.  Document  Reproduction  Service  1972.  No.  ED  058000)  Pollock,  D. H.  The use of c l o z e to determine r e a d i n g  instructional levels. S e r v i c e No.  Potter,  (ERIC. 022644)  ED 099792)  T. C.  readability  (ERIC.  Document  Reproduction  (Abstract)  A taxonomy of c l o z e r e s e a r c h part I : and reading comprehension*  Document  Reproduction  19 6 8.  Service  No.  ED  gap:  two  (Abstract)  Rakes, T. A., & McWilliams, I.  Bridging  standardized  the  alternatives  to  testing*  J o u r n a l , Oct.  1978, 67 , 7 , 4 6 - 50.  English  113  Rankin, E. F* J r . The c l o z e procedure and  utility.  -  Eighth Yearbook o f the N a t i o n a l  Reading Conference, 19 59,  8;  1 3 1 - 1 4 4.  Rankin, E. F. J r . The c l o z e procedure research.  Rankin>  scores.  E. F., S  Dec.  Culhane,  1970*  Riley,  P.  survey  of  (ERIC.  Document  ED 046657)  J . W.  m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e comprehension of_ReadiMx.  a  Grade l e v e l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of c l o z e  Reproduction S e r v i c e No*  Rankin,  -  N a t i o n a l Reading Conference, 196 5, J.4 .  E. F.  readability  i t s validity  Comparable c l o z e and test scores.  Journal  1969, .13 , 3 , 193 - 198.  M.  The c l o z e procedure —  annotated b i b l i o g r a p h y .  1973.  Reproduction S e r v i c e No*  ED 106749)  (  (ERIC.  a selected Document  11 4  Rosenkranz,  C. I . R.  The e f f i c i e n c y of c l o z e  f o r e s t i m a t i n g reading a b i l i t y  of students and  r e a d a b i l i t y of m a t e r i a l s i n a d u l t educational_programs. S e r v i c e No.  R u d d e l l , R. B. technigue  ED 119127)  A in  study  Rupley, W. H. 1973,  Russell, the  fundamental  Document  Reproduction  (Abstract)  of  relation  reading material. Conference,  (ERIC.  procedure  to  the  cloze  comprehension  structurally  I n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading  controlled Association  1964, 9 298 - 303.  The c l o z e procedure.  J o u r n a l of Reading,  T6 , 6 , 496 - 497.  S. N.  How  e f f e c t i v e i s the c l o z e technigue  measurement  of  reading  comprehension?  Viewpoints i n Teaching and L e a r n i n g , 1978, 54 , 3 90 - 95.  in  ,  115  Schneyer,  J. W.  Use  improving r e a d i n g 1965,  of  cloze  comprehension.  procedure  for  Reading Teacher.  J 9 , 174 - 179.  Schoelles,  I . S.  placement.  C l o z e as a p r e d i c t o r of reading April,  1971.  Reproduction S e r v i c e No.  Smith,  the  N.,  5  Zink,  A.  (ERIC.  group  Document  ED 053868)  A c l o z e - b a s e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  r e a d i n g comprehension  as a composite  J o u r n a l of Reading Behaviour,  of  subskills.  1977,  9  , 4 , 3 9 5 -  cloze  line.  398.  Spooncer,  F.  Hanging  out  the  Onited  Kingdom Reading A s s o c i a t i o n ^ June 1 9 7 4 , 8 , 19 - 26.  Taylor,  W. R.  "Cloze  measuring r e a d a b i l i t y . 30 , 415 - 433.  procedure":  a  new  tool  for  Journalism Q u a r t e r l y , 19 5 3 ,  116  T a y l o r , W. L.  Recent developments i n the use o f  procedure".  Journalism  Quarterly  "cloze  , 1956, 33 , 42 -  48.  T a y l o r , W. L.  "Cloze" r e a d a b i l i t y  individual aptitude.  differences  scores as i n d i c e s  in  comprehension  of and  J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology^ 1957, 41_ ,  1 , 19 - 26.  Thelen,  J . N.  textbooks;  Using  the  Science  cloze  test  with  science  and C h i l d r e n , 1974, V2 , 3 , 26  - 27.  Thorndike, E. L. mistakes  Reading in  and  reasoning:  paragraph  reading.  a  study  of  J o u r n a l of  E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1917, 8 , 323 - 332.  Tinzmann,  M. B., &  Thomas,  l i s t e n i n g and reading standardized (ERIC. 162249)  G. R.  A comparison of  c l o z e procedures and a  reading achievement .test;  Document  Reproduction  Service  Hay, No;  1977. ED  117  Tuinman* J .  f  6 B l a n t c n , G.  of comprehension* 159 -  Van  A note on c l o z e as a measure  Journal  of Psychology,  90 ,  162.  Rooy,  L.  R e a d a b i l i t y _ s t u d i e s and the w r i t e r of  i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials. Reproduction S e r v i c e No.  Vaughan,  J . L. J r .  assessments.  Walter,  Journal  R. B.  ED 094337)  W.,  cloze  and  language 1963  ED 089245)  (ERIC.  5 Kingston, A. J .  the  Document  readability 1.9 , 635.  H i s t o r i c a l overview of the c l o z e  Service  Weaver, W.  (ERIC.  of.Readinq, 1976,  1974.  No.  1973.  Interpreting  procedure.  Dec.  1975,  procedure  , 13  ability. , 252 -  Document  Reproduction  A factor  analysis  and other measures of  of  reading  J o u r n a l of Communication, 26X.  118  Weaver,  G. C.  technigue.  Osing the c l o z e procedure as a t e a c h i n g Reading Teacher*  1979, 3 2 , 5  ,  6 32  636.  Weaver,  W. W.  procedure. 115 - 132.  Theoretical  aspects  of  the  cloze  N a t i o n a l Reading Conference , 1964, J.3 ,  119  Appendix A  Corrected Lorge Formula  Compute average sentence l e n g t h i n words (X2) ;  Compute number of p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases  per  100  words  (X3) ;  Count number of d i f f e r e n t word l i s t  hard words not on the Dale 769  (X4) ;  S u b s t i t u t e i n the formula: X1(grade placement) = .06X2 + .10X3 + .10X4 + 1.99  X1  stands  correctly  for  the average reading a b i l i t y  answer one-half of the  given passage.  (Klare, 1963)  test  required to  questions  on  a  120  Appendix B  F l e s c h Corrected The  Flesch  formula,  designed t o give a reading  unlike grade  i n d i c a t e a l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y being  the e a s i e s t and 7 being  Systematically  select  Formula the  Lorge,  level  but  was not  rather  to  based on seven c l a s s e s , 1 the most d i f f i c u l t .  samples  of  100  words  throughout the m a t e r i a l t o be r a t e d :  Compute average sentence l e n g t h  Count the number o f a f f i x e s  Count t h e number of p e r s o n a l  i n words (Xs) ;  (Xm) ;  r e f e r e n c e s (Xh);  Average the r e s u l t s and i n s e r t  i n the formula:  .07Xm + -07Xs - .05Xh + 3.27 F l e s c h s t i p u l a t e d t h a t the  users  (Klare 1963) of  his  formula  were t o count as sentences each u n i t of thought t h a t gramatically if  was  independent of another sentence or c l a u s e ,  i t ended with a p e r i o d ,  p o i n t , semicolon or c o l o n . to be counted as sentences.  guestion  mark;  exclamation  Sentence fragments were a l s o  121  Appendix C  F l e s c h Reading Ease Formula  Systematically  select  100-word samples from  material  to be r a t e d ;  Determine  the  number  of  syllables  per 100 words  (WI) ;  Determine the average number o f words  per  sentence  (SL) ;  Apply i n the f o l l o w i n g reading R.E.  ease  eguation:  = 206.835 - .846WL - 1.01SL  Refer  to charts  grade  equivalent.  (Klare 1963)  f o r l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y and approximate  Appendix  C SYLLABLES  PER  100 W O R D S 120"  120  f  H O W 1 0 US I T H I S C H A H T I *Ku <i (>«<» il o i (ulci ami COIInoci y o u i " W o r d * p«f S e n t e n c e " liguie (loll) with y o u i "SyllaWtti pMf 100 W u f d i " l.gufti Inghi). Tho Inteiiocuon of tha pencil Of lulor MHlh tha cenior l i n o t h a m your "RondifiQ Batt" i c o i o .  READING EASE  125  125  130  130  135 •  135  140  140  145-4 -  145  150 -  -  150  155  -  155  SCORE 100-  95-E  -95  90-E  -90  V e r y Easy  Easy  \ 85-E E>  Fairly WORDS  PER  Easy  SENTENCE  < >  Standard  10-  Fairly  -10  i  20-  -20  Difficult S  25-  30-  -25  Very  -30  Difficult 35-  75  -E  75  70  -E — - 7 0  65 - f  65  ~E  60  50  -15  -80  55-E  -EE  50 45  40-E  40  35-E  35  30-E  30  25-E  25  20-E  20  -E  15  io-E  10  5-E :  5  -35  - Easy Fairly Easy -  i Fairly  165  -  165  -  170  -  170  -  175  -  180  -  185  -  190  175  > Difficult  180 185  190 Difficult 195  - 195  200  - 200  1049 by R u d o l f  Reading-ease score  Description of style  Typical magazine  90 to 100 80 to 90 70 to 80 60 to 70  Very easy Easy Fairly easy Standard  50 to 60  Comics Pulp liction Slick fiction Digests, Time, Mass nonaction  Fairly difficult Difficult  Harper's, Atlantic  Very difficult  Scientific, professional  30 to 50 Oto 30 R.  Co., Flesch,  - 160  Difficult  ©  FTesch,  160  • Standard  55  45 - £  15  • V e r y Easy  85  80-E  60  Difficult 15 •  — 100-  The  art  1949,  of  Grade 5 6 7 8 and 9  Academic, scholarly  readabTe~writing.  New  York:  10-12 (high school) 13-16 (college) College Hgraduate arper and  Row  Publishing-  p.5.  R.  How  to  test  1951,  pp.  6,  43.  readability.  New  York:  Harper  and  Row  Publishing  Co.,  123  Appendix D  Dale-chall  Select  Formula  100-word samples throughout  the  material  to  be r a t e d ;  (about for  every t e n t h page f o r books* every 2000 words  articles)  Compute the average sentence l e n g t h i n words (X2);  Compute the percentage of list  of 3000  words  outside  the  Dale  (X1) ;  Apply i n formula: Xc50 = .1579x1 + .0496x2 + 3.6365 Where  Xc50  r e f e r s t o the r e a d i n g grade score of a  student who can answer one-half of the t e s t q u e s t i o n s on a passage c o r r e c t l y .  (Klare 1963) Dale and C h a l l (1948)  s e t up the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e of estimated c o r r e c t e d levels:  grade  124  Appendix D  Formula Score  Corrected  4.9 and below  Grade IV and below  5.0 to 5.9  Grades V - VI  6.0 t o 6.9  Grades VII - V I I I  7.0 to 7.9  Grades IX - X  I.O  9.0  Grade:level  t o 8.9  Grades XI - XII  to 9 .9  Grades XIII - XV  10.00  and above  The D a l e - C h a l l l i s t  (College)  Grades XVI +College graduate has not been i n c l u d e d .  Appendix  E  Expanded Directions lor Working Readability Graph 1. Randomly select three (3) sample passages and count out exactly 100 words each, beginning with the beginning of a sentence. Do count proper nouns, initializations, and numerals. 2. Count the number of sentences in the hundred words, estimating length of the fraction of the last sentence to the nearest one-tenth. 3. Count the total number of syllables in the 100-word passage. If you don't have a hand counter available, an easy way is to simply put a mark above every syllable over one in each word, then when you get to the end of the passage, count the number of marks and add 100. Small calculators can also be used as counters by pushing numeral 1, then push the • sign for each word or syllable when counting. 4. Enter graph with average sentence length and average number of syllables; plot dot where the two lines intersect. Area where dot is plotted will give you the approximate grade level. 5. If a great deal of variability is found in syllable count or sentence count, putting more samples into the average is desirable. 6. A word is defined as a group of symbols with a space on either side; thus, Joe, IRA, 1945, and & are each one word. 7. A syllable is defined as a phonetic syllable. Generally, there are as many syllables as vowel sounds. For example, stopped is one syllable and wanted is two syllables. When counting syllables for numerals and initializations, count one syllable for each symbol. For example, 7945 is four syllables, IRA is three syllables, and & is one syllable. Note:  This "entendod graph" does not outmodo or render the earlier (1968) version Inoperative or inaccurate; it is an extension. (REPRODUCTION PERMITTED—NO COPYRIGHT)  FRY: ... Readability Graph  249  126  Appendix F  Smog R e a d a b i l i t y Formula SMOG  grading = 3+ sguare  count. of  root o f p o l y s y l l a b l e  The p o l y s y l l a b l e count  words,  within  i s t h e number  a t h i r t y sentence  passage,  that have three or more s y l l a b l e s .  SMOG Grading  1.  Count  10 c o n s e c u t i v e  beginning  of  i n the middle as  a  with  2.  In  any s t r i n g o f words guestion  string  ending or  count  every  syllables.  Any  point:  three of  and ending  Count  mark  the 30 s e l e c t e d sentences  word of  mark  and 10 near the end.  period,  exclamation  near the  the t e x t t o be assessed, 10  sentence a  sentences  or  more  letters with  should  a  or numerals beginning space  be counted  or  punctuation  i f at l e a s t  three  s y l l a b l e s can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d when i t i s read aloud i n context  .  I f a polysyllabic  word i s r e p e a t e d , c o u n t  Estimate the square polysyllabic by  taking  perfect is  95,  square.  lies  This i s  p e r f e c t square  a square  roughly  instance,  i f the count of  root  nearest  the  two  lower  100  is  count  is  of 10.  between  choose  root  of the  done  F o r example, i f t h e  sguares,  sguare  o f t h e number o f  the s q u a r e r o o t  yields  count  root  repetition.  words c o u n t e d ;  the nearest  which  each  100, I f the  perfect  number.  110,  rather  For  take  the  than t h a t  of  121.  Add This  3  to  the  gives  reading  grade  reached  i f  text  approximate  the  square  root.  SMOG Grade* which  i s the  that he  assessed;  a  person  i s t o understand  must fully  have the  128  Appendix G THE GOOD OLD DAYS? Have you ever been told, "Now you're going to catch 1t! your  gets home," or "Wait  you had lived in If  times, you might have  had been told, "Wait Colonial punishment  Just wait t i l l  your mother finds out"? even more apprehensive  Lecture Day!" misconduct could be quite  embarrassed and  by the whole town  .  To be  one of the agonizing  endured by many. On  Day, a l l the community and went to the  a lengthy lecture -  There, a preacher  deliver  dramatic fire-and-brimstone  consequences of  behavior.  misbehavior  on the  It was designed  l i s t e n e r s ' hearts.  was the  aside i t s work, packed  square.  put fear of  Everyone listened  ; but i t  that the villagers awaited. the speech was f i n a l l y  were paraded to a  , a l l those convicted of  in front of the  .  their g u i l t and publicly  .  They were forced to  Then they were whipped.  real criminals - those who  murdered or robbed large  - were hanged, as were  accused of witchcraft.  thieves, for instance - were  .  Others -  The rest were locked  the stocks or p i l l o r y .  were those accused of  nagging, drunkenness,  to observe the Sabbath,  beating, cursing, talking back  to parents.  stocks were a wooden by fastening hands and person's head but  '  which restrained a seated  in locked frames. hands.  The punishment was  passersby added physical torment  The  restrained a to be psychological, pelting prisoners with  stones.  The idea of public r i d i c u l e was a terrible one, and was effective 1n keeping most people within the binding rules.  I  129  t i l l  your  fa  1  its  home,"  or  had  lived  in  2  al  times,  you  had  been  to!  3  t  4  hment  .  5  graced  endured  b y m.  6  On  Lecti  7  to  the  8  luare.  Colonia embarrassed  went  until  for by  the  all  the  There,  designed  to  10  tr  quietly;  but  11  ;  12  :h was  f i n a l l y  a  13  >rm  front  pu  14  apologize.  rea  15  inals  guilt  and  The hanged,  were  the  -  >se  -  w  17  >risoned.  those  a  18  -e a w o o d e n  ha  21  i  han  22  ie  physic  23  lent  idea most  of  or  quite one  people  in  If  1.  you  apprehensive  severe.  of  the  To  i f  you  be  agonizing  within  rest  locked  pelting  the  villagers  a l l  those  2.  4'punishments  to  5*-  lecture  behavior. Everyone  a  was  9.  -  It  1'8.  listened  of  or  crimes  forced  to  12.  were  admit  their  in  nagging,  -  which  large  common  the  amounts-  thieves,  stocks  or  drunkenness,  were  for  16.  p i l l o r y . failure  to  be with  terrible  15.  They to  17. 18. 19.  restrained  The  13. 14.  robbed  Others  10. 11.  awaited.  whipped.  locked  prisoners  binding  hearts.  and  parents.  meant  a  lunches  lengthy  bad  convicted  murdered  were  packed a  of  They were  were  frames.  was  deliver  the  cursing,  was  work,  consequences  witchcraft.  structure  ridicule  would  people.  had  its  listeners'  there  back  punishment by  the  who  of  aside  the  into  Then  talking  feet  public  on  beating,  20  The keeping  wife  sto  and  be  was  put  over,  The  i,  fastening  more  out"?  3.  town  that  of  accused  19  The  added  sermon  those  16  the  even  finds  -  preacher  follow-up  in  of  a  misbehavior  w  observe  head  of  as  instance  been  could  whole  community  >rimstone  to  Day!"  mother  6'-  9  paraded  your  have  misconduct  f i n  th  t i l l  might  Lecture  dramatic  When  "Wait  pillory  a  seated  restrained  psychological,  but  prisoner a  by  20.  person's  21.  often  stones.  one,  and  passersby  22. 23.  was  effective  rules.  I  i  130  p-e  Unit 19 — THE GOOD OLD DAYS? Have you ever been told, "Now you're going to catch it! Just wait till your father i . ,me," or "Wait till your mother finds out"? If you had lived in col. . mes, you might have been even more apprehensive if you had been 3. Wait until Lecture D a y ! "  1. _  2. _  2  Colonial p  4.  embarrassed ai 5 p u n i s h m e n t s er  6.  3/  4._  ient for misconduct could be quite severe. To be raced by the whole town was one of the agonizing by many.  5. 6. "  On Lectur 7. lunches and w« 8. lengthy lectun $ quences of bad 10. listeners' heart \ \ „ the villagers av 12.  all the community put aside its work, packed he town square. There, a preacher would deliver a amatic fire-and-brimstone sermon on the conseor. It was designed to put fear of misbehavior into yone listened quietly; but it was the follow-up that  7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. _ 11. _ 12.  When the 13 paraded to a p 14, their guilt and 15,  was finally over, all those convicted of crimes were in front of the people. They were forced to admit apologize. Then they were whipped.  13, 14. 15.  The real 16. amounts —wer 17. —common thie 18. in the stocks 019. ing, nagging, 20. back to parent*  ils —those who had murdered or robbed large ;d, as were those accused of witchcraft. Others instance—were imprisoned. The rest were locked y . They were those accused of wife beating, cursiness, failure to observe the Sabbath, or talking  16 , 17. 18. 19. 20.  The stock 21. prisoner by ft 22. restrained a pe 23. psychological, 24. prisoners with 25.  a wooden structure which restrained a seated hands and feet in locked frames. The pillory lead and hands. The punishment was meant to be en passersby added physical torment by pelting  t  The idea of public ridicule was a terrible one, and was effective I keeping most people within the binding rules.  2 1 2 2 2 3 2  4  •. •••  25."  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 49 1
China 25 9
Japan 7 0
Indonesia 3 0
France 3 0
Barbados 2 1
Pakistan 1 0
Taiwan 1 0
Unknown 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 43 17
Beijing 23 4
Tokyo 7 0
Ashburn 7 0
Mountain View 3 0
Lithonia 2 0
Shenzhen 2 5
Wildey 2 1
Gering 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Kansas City 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055674/manifest

Comment

Related Items