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.. 1980

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1981_A8 P37.pdf [ 5.38MB ]
UBC_1981_A8 P37.pdf
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
Citation
1.0055674.ris

Full Text

THE VALIDITY AND APPLICABILITY OF TWO MODIFIED CLOZE PROCEDURES (BEGINNING OF THE PAGE PROCEDURE AND "INSTANT" BEGINNING OF THE PAGE PROCEDURE) MEASURED AGAINST THE STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC READING TEST AND EQUATED WITH THE CLOZE PROCEDURE AND FRY READABILITY GRAPH. By DIANNE PARKINSON B.A., Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Education (Reading) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA © O c t o b e r , 1980 Dianne Parkinson, 1980 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l 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 . I f u r t h e r f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e head o f my department 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 . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t t h e U n i v e r s i t 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 c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i The v a l i d i t y and a p p l i c a b i l i t y of two modified c l o z e procedures (Beginning of the Page Procedure and the " i n s t a n t " Beginning of the Page Procedure) measured a g a i n s t the Stanf ord Diaqnggtic IReadingTest and equated with the c l o z e procedure and the Fry Graph; ABSTRACT T h i s c o r r e l a t i o n a l study examined the Beginning of the Page Procedure (B.O.P.P.) and the " i n s t a n t " Beginning of the Page Procedure as measures f o r a s s e s s i n g r e a d a b i l i t y : One hundred ninety^-six grade nine students (106 male and 90 female) took p a r t i n the study and t h e i r s cores on the c l o z e procedure, the B-O-P.P. and the " i n s t a n t " B.O.P-P. were c o r r e l a t e d with the S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Reading Test Form A - Blue L e v e l ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as the Stanford D i a g n o s t i c ) . The Stanford D i a g n o s t i c was used as the anchor t e s t and the students were randomly assigned to each of the t h r e e groups; Analyses i n c l u d e d the c a l c u l a t i o n of means a s s o c i a t e d with the Stanfo r d D i a g n o s t i c s c o r e s f o r each subgroup, and a n a l y s i s of the varia n c e between sexes w i t h i n each subgroup. An eq u i v a l e n c y t a b l e i s provided which estimates the Stanfo r d D i a g n o s t i c s c o r e s f o r a given c l o z e procedure, B.O.P.P. or " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. score; Using the S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c grade i i i s c o re e q u i v a l e n t to 40 percent on the c l o z e procedure, the r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l of the passage was determined. T h i s was then compared t o the r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l estimated by the Fry Graph. Respective c o r r e l a t i o n s of .53 and .67 were found between the B.O.P.P. and " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. with the Sta n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c suggesting both are good i n d i c a t o r s of the s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y t o handle the given passage. S i m i l a r l y the F r y Graph and the Stanford D i a g n o s t i c , grade score equal t o 40 percent on the c l o z e procedure, found the passages to be at v i r t u a l l y the same l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y . A l l r e s u l t s ^ however, were l i m i t e d to the passage s t u d i e d and should not be g e n e r a l i z e d to other m a t e r i a l s . When a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of .05 was used no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between the male and female performance l e v e l s on any of the t e s t s a d ministered . i v T able of Contents CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM R a t i o n a l e f o r the Study - 1 O b j e c t i v e s of the Study 6 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Used . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Research Questions . 11 B a s i c Assumptions 12 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 14 O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Remainder of the Study 15 Chapter I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE R e a d a b i l i t y Formulas 16 Lorge r e a d a b i l i t y formula 17 F l e s c h r e a d a b i l i t y formula ........... 18 D a l e - C h a l l r e a d a b i l i t y formula 20 Fry R e a d a b i l i t y Graph 21 SMOG r e a d a b i l i t y formula . . . . . — 22 Bormuth r e a d a b i l i t y formula .......... 23 Cau t i o n s concerning r e a d a b i l i t y formulas 24 The Cloze Procedure 26 S t r u c t u r e of c l o z e procedure passages 30 V Passage l e n g t h 32 P r e - c l o z e v e r s u s p o s t - c l o z e 33 Space l e n g t h 34 S e l e c t i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e passage . . . 35 S c o r i n g methods 36 C l o z e p r o c e d u r e t e s t s v a l i d a t e d a g a i n s t r e a d a b i l i t y f o r m u l a s , m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t s and s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s 38 Frame o f r e f e r e n c e f o r c l o z e p r o c e d u r e s c o r e s 44 C r i t i c i s m s o f t h e c l o z e p r o c e d u r e . . . . 46 M o d i f i c a t i o n s on t h e c l o z e p r o c e d u r e . 49 C h a p t e r I I I A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY S e l e c t i o n o f S u b j e c t s 52 P r o c e d u r e s f o r A d m i n i s t e r i n g and S c o r i n g t h e S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c R e a d i n g T e s t 53 P r o c e d u r e s f o r S e l e c t i n g t h e Passage 54 P r o c e d u r e s 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 M a r k i n g t h e C l o z e P r o c e d u r e 54 P r o c e d u r e s 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 M a r k i n g t h e B e g i n n i n g o f the Page P r o c e d u r e 56 P r o c e d u r e s f c 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 M a r k i n g 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 57 v i A n a l y s i s o f the Data 58 F i g u r e s 61 Chapter IV ANALYSIS OF DATA, SUMMARY, C0NCLDSI0N5 AND IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Research Question . . i i 79 Test s of Research Questions 80 Tables 82 Summary 94 D i s c u s s i o n 96 Con 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 Future Study ......... 99 B i b l i o g r a p h y : 101 Appendix: A. Lorge R e a d a b i l i t y Formula 119 B. F l e s c h R e a d a b i l i t y Formula . 120 C. F l e s c h Reading Ease Formula 121 D. D a l e - C h a l l R e a d a b i l i t y Formula i . i . . . 123 E i Fry R e a d a b i l i t y Graph 125 F. SMOG R e a d a b i l i t y Formula 126 G i C l o z e Procedure Test 128 H. Beginning of the Page Procedure 129 I. " I n s t a n t " Eeginning of the Page Procedure 130 v i i L i s t of T a b l e s : I. Mean and Standard D e v i a t i o n of Stanford D i a g n o s t i c Scores f o r Groups Cloze Procedure, B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P 82 I I . Mean and Standard D e v i a t i o n of Stanfor d D i a g n o s t i c Scores f o r Male and Female P o p u l a t i o n s 83 I I I . Anova — E f f e c t s of Sex on S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Mean Scores f o r the T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n and Groups Cloze Procedure, B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. 84 IV. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Subjects by Sex 85 V. Mean and Standard D e v i a t i o n f o r Percent Scores f o r Groups Cloze Procedure, B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. ....... 86 VI. C e l l and Marginal Means f o r the S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores, and Cloze Procedure, B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. Percent Scores 87 VII. Summary of Anova E f f e c t s of Sex on Stanford D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores* and Cloze Procedure, B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. Percent Scores 88 V I I I . Estimated I n s t r u c t i o n a l Range E q u i v a l e n c i e s f o r Groups Cloze Procedure, B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P 89 v i i i IX. Estimated Equivalency Table f o r Cloze Procedure, B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. Scores as P r e d i c t e d from Stanford D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores 90 X. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of V a r i a b l e s ...... 91 XI. S i g n i f i c a n c e o f C o r r e l a t i o n s of a l l V a r i a b l e s 92 XII. Grade E q u i v a l e n t s Corresponding t o St a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores 93 i x List of Figures,: F i g u r e 1. Stanford D i a g n o s t i c Haw Scores f o r the T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n 61 2. Stanford D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores f o r the Subgroup Cloz e Procedure . 63 3. Stanford D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores f o r the Subgroup B.O.P.P 65 4. Stanford D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores f o r the Subgroup '.'Instant" B.O.P.P. ... 67 5. Percent Scores f o r the Group Cloze Procedure 69 6. Percent Scores f o r the Group B.OiP.P. 71 7. Percent Scores f o r the Group " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P .. 73 8. Scattergram of C l o z e Procedure Percent Scores and S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores .... 75 9. Scattergram of B.O.P.P. Percent Scores and S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores .... 76 10. Scattergram of " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. Percent Scores and Stanford D i a g n o s t i c Raw Scores 77 11. P r e d i c t e d Regression L i n e s f o r Groups Cloze Procedure B.O.P.P. and " I n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. 78 1 CHAPTER I The., Problem Rationale for the Study One wishes that he might more frequently find on the secondary l e v e l materials for the various i n s t r u c t i o n a l units in the content areas on l e v e l s easier and more d i f f i c u l t than those commonly used for the grade l e v e l . Materials of t h i s type are a must i f the high school teacher i s to build his program on what he knows of the way young people grow - some slower, others much faster than the average for the grade. (Bormuth 1967, p.291) Each day students face the f r u s t r a t i o n of having materials assigned to them that they cannot comprehend. Educators are faced with the problem of trying to determine what materials are su i t a b l e for a p a r t i c u l a r student. The trend has been to develop r e l a t i v e l y simple and fast techniques for determining the reading l e v e l of the given material, the reading capacity of the student and the student's a b i l i t y to deal with that material. The matching of a student's reading l e v e l with the reading l e v e l of assigned readings i s c a l l e d 2 r e a d a b i l i t y . Techniques f o r determining r e a d a b i l i t y have developed i n three b a s i c d i r e c t i o n s : the r e a d a b i l i t y formula, the i n f o r m a l i n v e n t o r y and the c l o z e procedure; Of these the i n f o r m a l i n v e n t o r y i s l i k e l y the l e a s t used f o r as Bormuth (1968) suggested, i t i s time consuming and r e q u i r e s a r e l a t i v e l y high degree of t r a i n i n g on the p a r t of the teacher. Pennock, (1973) f u r t h e r cautioned that " In reading t e s t s where the student i s asked to answer q u e s t i o n s , h i s score i s i n f l u e n c e d not only by the passages read, but a l s o by the q u a l i t y of the q u e s t i o n s and h i s comprehension of them" (p. 37). T h i s c r i t i c i s m may be l e v e l e d to some degree at s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s but more importantly a t t e s t s t h a t have not been su b j e c t e d to the r i g o r s of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n ; For the average classroom teacher a r e a d a b i l i t y formula i n c o n j u n c t i o n with a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t or the c l o z e procedure would appear to provide the most expedient s o l u t i o n to the problem of p r o v i d i n g students with r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l s at t h e i r own reading l e v e l . The emergence of the r e a d a b i l i t y formula from i t s complex and time consuming be g i n n i n g , to i t s present quick s c o r i n g formulas i s t r a c e d i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e , chapter I I . Although a v a r i e t y of uses have been developed f o r the c l o z e procedure* l i t t l e has been done to s t r e a m l i n e 3 i t when used as a r e a d a b i l i t y measure. Educators are s t i l l required to select a book, type six to twelve 250 word passages, have students f i l l in the deleted words, determine the mean score on each of the passages, add a l l the means together and divide by the number of passages administered. This r e s u l t s in a score which i s the mean of means and the passage with the mean closest to t h i s score i s considered to be representative of the booki Granted th i s process need be done only once per book but as Pennock (1973 ) suggests, " ...few classroom teachers have the time and f a c i l i t i e s for cloze procedure test production as a means of assessing the d i f f i c u l t y of each book" (p. 38) . He does suggest that a reading coordinator might construct such tests and also proposes an alternative to the t r a d i t i o n a l cloze procedure sampling process. (see Chapter 2 Modifications on the Cloze Procedure^) McCabe (1979) has proposed a process which could d r a s t i c a l l y cut the time reguired for the whole cloze procedure^ He c a l l s his proposal B;0;P.P. - "Beginning of the Page Procedure". Following McCabe1s ins t r u c t i o n s ; ...the teacher must f i r s t type an intact passage onto a d i t t o master^ Second, a s t r i p of paper, which i s approximately s i x inches 4 long (15cm) and 1/2 i n c h (1.25 era) wide, i s cut from a p l a i n p i e c e of paper. T h i s s t r i p of paper i s then taped to the back of the d i t t o master* approximately one inch (2.5 cm) from the l e f t hand margin; The s t e n c i l i s then i n s e r t e d i n t o a D i t t o reproducing machine and c o p i e s of the B.O.P.P. are made". (p. 199) An i n t e r e s t i n g aspect of the B.O.P;P. i s the d e l e t i o n of p a r t words as w e l l as whole words. Readers are asked to f i l l i n a l l missing words or p a r t s of words. They may a l s o be i n s t r u c t e d to c r o s s out p a r t s of words which do not appear a p p r o p r i a t e and r e p l a c e these with something they f e e l i s a p p r o p r i a t e . McCabe proposed f u r t h e r v a r i a t i o n s on the c l o z e procedure by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t broader s t r i p s may be used t o focus the reader's a t t e n t i o n on l a r g e r segments of i n f o r m a t i o n or t h a t the s t r i p of paper be moved to c r e a t e a "Middle of the Page Procedure", M.O.P.P. or an "End of the Page Procedure," E.O.P.P . The major t h r u s t of McCabe's proposal appears to focus on an a b b r e v i a t e d c l o z e procedure; one t h a t i s l e s s time consuming and t h e r e f o r e more l i k e l y t o be used by the classroom teacher. McCabe goes so f a r as to suggest that, an " i n s t a n t B.O.P.P." could be c r e a t e d by p l a c i n g a s t r i p of paper (15 cm long and 2.5 cm wide) one i n c h from the l e f t hand margin of any book. That 5 page c o u l d then be photocopied to produce 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 . I f f i e l d s t u d i e s on McCabe's pro p o s a l prove the r e s u l t s of the B.C.P.P. and the " i n s t a n t " BiO.P.P. to be e g u a l l y as v a l i d as those of the c l o z e procedure, every nth word d e l e t e d , then he has crea t e d a one ste p r e a d a b i l i t y formula with a l l the advantages of the c l o z e procedure d i s c u s s e d i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Chapter I I . He has a l s o c r e a t e d a quick means of determining a student's a b i l i t y to deal with the given r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l and a technique more r e a d i l y usable by the classroom teacher. T h i s study i n v e s t i g a t e d the v a l i d i t y of the B.O.P.P. and the " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. when compared with the c l o z e procedure, every f i f t h word d e l e t e d , and the r e s u l t s of a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t ; The passage used i n the study was screened using the Fry R e a d a b i l i t y Graph. Subjects were a random s e l e c t i o n of grade 9 students i n one J u n i o r High* The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the B.O.P.P. and the " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P. were measured i n terms of the c o r r e l a t i o n of t h e i r r e s u l t s with the comprehension s e c t i o n of the S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Reading Test, Blue l e v e l , Form A {her e a f t e r , S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c ). 6 O b j e c t i v e s of the Study The major o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study i s to answer the f o l l o w i n g g u e s t i o n s . 1) How r e l a t e d are the c l o z e procedure, the Beginning of the Page Procedure (B.0.P.P.)and the " i n s t a n t " Beginning of the Page Procedure to the S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c ? 2) I s the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l of 40 - 59 percent u s i n g the c l o z e procedure e q u i v a l e n t to the same scores on the B.O.P.P. and the " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P? 3) Does the Fry R e a d a b i l i t y Graph estimate the r e a d a b i l i t y of the given passage to be the same as the Stanford D i a g n o s t i c grade e q u i v a l e n t f o r 4 0 percent on the c l o z e procedure ? 4) Are the performance l e v e l s of males and females s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t on the Stanfo r d D i a g n o s t i c , the c l o z e procedure, the B.O.P.P. or the " i n s t a n t " B.O.P.P? 7 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Osed B.O.P.P. — Beginning of the Page Procedure. A procedure that i n s t r u c t s the teacher to type an i n t a c t passage onto a ditt o master. Next a s t r i p of paper approximately 6 inches long (15 cm) and 1/2 inch (1^25 cm) wide i s attached to the back of the d i t t o , one inch (2.5 cm) from the left-hand margin. No part of the f i r s t or l a s t sentence should be covered. The s t e n c i l i s then run on a reproducing machine to create copies of the B.O.P.P. The deletions in the B.O.P.P. include whole words and part words and the reader i s instructed to f i l l i n the missing parts. For the purpose of t h i s study only responses that exactly matched deletions were considered correct. I t was also noted that a 1/2 inch deletion on a page typed on an average typewriter, was egual to 1/10th the spaces on the typed l i n e (see appendix H). "Instant" B.O.P.P. — t h i s procedure i s l i k e the B.O.P.P. but requires no typing^ The s t r i p of paper i s placed over a page i n a book or other printed material making sure to leave 8 the f i r s t and l a s t sentence intact. The page i s then photocopied to produce the desired number of copies. For the purpose of t h i s study the reader's responses once again had to exactly match the deletions to be counted as correct. The width of the s t r i p of paper was considered to be equal to 1/10th the number,of spaces on a f u l l l i n e i n the p a r t i c u l a r material being studied and not the 1/2 inch suggested by McCabe. This modification to McCabe*s proposal was made to take into account the variety in size of type found i n printed materials (see appendix I) . Spaces on a l i n e — t h i s includes a l l l e t t e r s on a given l i n e * a l l punctuation and a l l spaces between words. A f u l l l i n e i s one which goes from the l e f t hand margin to the right hand margin* Cloze Procedure — a passage of at least 250 words i s chosen. The f i r s t and l a s t sentence are l e f t intact and every f i f t h word i s deleted in the remainder of the passage up to a maximum of f i f t y deletions. The deletions are replaced with blanks of standard length and the reader 9 i s i n s t r u c t e d to f i l l i n the blank with the exact word t h a t has been d e l e t e d . Only exact r e p l i c a t i o n s of d e l e t e d words are sco r e d . The t o t a l c o r r e c t responses are m u l t i p l i e d by two to give the percentage s c o r e . S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Beading T e s t , Blue L e v e l , Form A — i s designed t o measure read i n g a b i l i t i e s of students i n grades 9 through 12 and i n community c o l l e g e s . For the purpose of t h i s study only t h a t s e c t i o n of form A which p e r t a i n e d to comprehension was a d m i n i s t e r e d . Fry R e a d a b i l i t y Graph — A guick s c o r i n g r e a d a b i l i t y measure t h a t y i e l d s a reading score somewhere between a student's i n s t r u c t i o n a l and f r u s t r a t i o n l e v e l i Independent r e a d i n g l e v e l — The l e v e l a t which a person can read and understand m a t e r i a l without any a s s i s t a n c e : T h i s i s u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to be e g u i v a l e n t t o a 90 percent score on a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e comprehension t e s t based on m a t e r i a l at the same l e v e l * I n s t r u c t i o n a l r e a d i n g l e v e l — The l e v e l at which a 10 person can read and understand m a t e r i a l with the a i d of an i n s t r u c t o r . T h i s i s u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to be e q u i v a l e n t to a 75 percent score on a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e comprehension t e s t . F r u s t r a t i o n reading l e v e l — The l e v e l at which a person i s unable to read and get meaning from a passage even with the a i d of an i n s t r u c t o r . T h i s i s u s u a l l y considered to be equal t o a s c o r e of l e s s than 50 percent on a m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t ; Research Questions 1. . H i l l the cloze procedure, the Beginning of the Page Procedure and the "instant" Beginning of the Page Procedure be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the Stanford Diagnostic ? 2. Are the scores yielded by the cloze procedure, the Beginning of the Page Procedure and the "instant" Beginning of the Page Procedure equivalent? 3. What i s the difference between the Fry estimate of re a d a b i l i t y for the passage and the Stanford Diagnostic grade equivalent for 40 percent on. the cloze procedure? 4. Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the performance levels of males and females on the Stanford Diagnostic r the cloze procedure, the B.O.P.P. or the "instant" B.O.P.P? 12 Basic Assumptions For the purpose of t h i s study the following assumptions were made* 1. The Stanford Diagnostic^ constituted a v a l i d measure of a student's reading achievement or reading grade l e v e l when one and a half years was subtracted from the reading grade score to determine the student's i n s t r u c t i o n a l reading l e v e l . (Burmeister, 1974) 2. The Fry Readability Graph gave a reasonable in d i c a t i o n of the cloze procedure passage being studied when one and a half years was added to the calculated score in order to obtain the l e v e l at which the material could be used for i n s t r u c t i o n , (see pg. 97) 3. The students' responses to the passages (including the cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P.) represented an honest attempt to replace the deleted word, words or parts of words. 4. The cloze tests selected were equal i n d i f f i c u l t y to any other cloze tests that could have been made over the same passage* 1 3 5. The s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d f o r treatments one, two* and t h r e e , represented the same p o p u l a t i o n . 14 Limitations of_the Study 1. Only one form of each cloze test was used f o r the study and one cannot be sure that the cloze tests chosen were equal i n d i f f i c u l t y to any other cloze test that could have been made over the same passage. 2. The population studied was limited to the grade nine body in one school in a suburban middle c l a s s d i s t r i c t . 3. The three treatments were given to three d i f f e r e n t groups ( assumed to be equal) and as such the e f f e c t of each treatment was not so comparable as i t might have been had a l l three treatments been given to each subject; This research, however, r e l i e d on interrupting other teacher's classes and to avoid further interruptions, only one form of each test was administered* 4. The grade equivalent for students scoring at the top end of the Stanford Diagnostic was designated as graduate l e v e l . This did not distinguish between the d i f f e r e n t scores within this range. 1 5 Organization of_the Remainder cf the Study Chapter II presents a review of the most frequently used r e a d a b i l i t y formulas and the l i t e r a t u r e pertaining to these formulas. The section of t h i s chapter dealing with r e a d a b i l i t y formulas i s designed only as a b r i e f overview and as an introduction to the cloze procedure which i s the major thrust of the chapter. A review of the research dealing with cloze procedure i s traced from the e a r l i e s t attempts to validate the cloze procedure to i t s present position as a v a l i d and useful measurement for both researchers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Chapter III provides a detailed description of the study including: the selection of the subjects, procedures f o r measuring the students' reading achievement; the selection of the passage to which the cloze procedure i s applied, and the construction administration and marking of the cloze procedure, the Beginning of the Page Procedure and the "instant" Beginning of the Page Procedure. The research guestions and the analysis of data are also presented i n t h i s chapter; Chapter IV presents analysis and discussion of the research guestions^ The conclusions and implications for future study are also included i n t h i s chapter. References and appendices are located immediately aft e r chapter IV. 16 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Readability Formulas The r e a d a b i l i t y formula appears to be the most widely, i f not the most wisely used technique f o r assessing r e a d a b i l i t y . Burmeister (1974) suggested that the determination of r e a d a b i l i t y through the use of a re a d a b i l i t y formula was a two step process* a) requiring that a standardized test be administered to establish the students' reading l e v e l , and b) requiring that a re a d a b i l i t y formula be applied to determine the l e v e l of the given material; Ideally, students were then matched to materials at t h e i r l e v e l . Burmeister cautioned that s i l e n t reading tests administered above the primary grade l e v e l tended to y i e l d grade scores that were equal to the students' f r u s t r a t i o n l e v e l and that i t was necessary to drop one to two f u l l grades from the test results in order to determine the students' i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l . The need to identif y reading l e v e l s for both the students and material was emphasized in a study by Galloway (1973) who pointed out that teachers often choose texts based on content and judge the r e a d a b i l i t y 17 of the text in r e l a t i o n to t h e i r own reading a b i l i t y and their f a m i l i a r i t y with the subject. She cited the example of one Toronto high school 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 college bound students. Teacher time i s an important factor i n the decision to use a formula* Klafe (1963) suggested that speed of application as well as the predictive accuracy of the formula were the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s most freguently considered by users of formulas. To date there are well over t h i r t y r e a d a b i l i t y formulas available f o r use, many of which contain extended calculations which may require manual aids or even computors. As these devices are not rea d i l y available to the classroom teachers such formulas were not considered* Only those measures considered by the l i t e r a t u r e to be both guickly administered and r e l a t i v e l y accurate were included. Lorge_geadability_Formula One of the early formulas to receive wide use was developed by Irving Lorge in 1939. Lorge was the f i r s t of many to use the McCall Crabbs Test Lessons i n Reading (hereafter referred to as McCall Crabbs Test Lessons) as a c r i t e r i o n for his study. By corr e l a t i n g h is formula to the McCall Crabbs passages (which had already been 18 graded), he was able to develop a three factor formula which computed average sentence length, number of prepositional phrases per 100 words and a count of the number of hard words not on the Dale l i s t of 769 words. This formula gave the grade placement value of the average reading a b i l i t y required to answer 75 percent of the test questions correctly (Klare, 1963). Some years l a t e r the o r i g i n a l formula was corrected and the grade placement was ..changed to correspond to 50 percent comprehension of test questions. Dale and Chall (1948) c r i t i c i z e d the Lorge formula saying that the 769 easy words l i s t did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the higher l e v e l s of d i f f i c u l t i e s (see appendix A) . Flesch Readability Formula The Flesch formula was the next major r e a d a b i l i t y measure to appear* Flesch developed a r e l a t i v e l y simple and accurate three factor formula which was correlated to the McCall Crabbs Test lessons using a 50 percent comprehension l e v e l . Unlike lorge, Flesch was very s k i l l f u l i n gaining p u b l i c i t y for his formula and brought attention to the concept of r e a d a b i l i t y to most areas of mass communication. Flesch's c r i t i c i s m of e a r l i e r formulas related to what he f e l t was t h e i r 19 f a i l u r e to provide a formula suitable for adult materials* He f e l t that they emphasized vocabulary at the expense of other factors and paid too l i t t l e attention to/the role of abstract words i n determining d i f f i c u l t y . The Flesch formula calculated sentence length, number of a f f i x e s and number of personal references (see appendix B) . Dale and Chall (1948) c r i t i c i z e d the Flesch formula saying that people count a f f i x e s d i f f e r e n t l y and therefore don't count the same number. They also f e l t that personal references could not be subtracted from d i f f i c u l t y i f those references were not f a m i l i a r to the reader. In that same year Flesch revised his formula having found the count of a f f i x e s too time consuming and the count of personal references misleading. The r e s u l t was two new formulas s t i l l based on the 1925 McCall Crabbs Test Lessons. These were the Reading Ease formula and the Human Interest formula. Klare (1963) suggested that the Human Interest formula was not popular with users but the Reading Ease formula became widely used (see appendix C) . 20 Dale - C h a l l R e a d a b i l i t y Formula In 1948 Dale and C h a l l produced t h e i r own formula which (along with the F l e s c h Reading Ease formula) q u i c k l y became one of the two most used formulas. The D a l e - C h a l l formula used the McCall Crabbs Test Lessons as had the aforementioned formulas. T h e i r aim was to a t t a i n a grade score e q u i v a l e n t to 50 percent comprehension on each of the passages. The formula c o n s i s t e d of o n l y two f a c t o r s , the average sentence l e n g t h i n words and the number of words o u t s i d e the Dale l i s t of 3,000. The Dale l i s t was c o n s t r u c t e d a f t e r t e s t i n g grade f o u r students on t h e i r .knowledge of 10,000 words. Words co n s i d e r e d known by 80 percent of the s u b j e c t s were p l a c e d on the l i s t of f a m i l i a r words. K l a r e (1975) r e p o r t e d t h a t the D a l e - C h a l l formula was t e s t e d a g a i n s t the 1925 McCall Crabbs Test Lessons and found t o c o r r e l a t e a t the 70 percent l e v e l . Dale and C h a l l (1948) reported that the formula was a l s o v a l i d a t e d on Health and S o c i a l S t u d i e s m a t e r i a l s and a c o r r e l a t i o n of .90 - .92 was found with the judgements of expert teachers i n the f i e l d and with a c t u a l reader comprehension. In 1958 Plowers, Sumner and K l a r e r e c a l c u l a t e d both the F l e s c h and the D a l e - C h a l l formulas based on the 1950 McCall Crabbs Test Lessons. They found t h a t the F l e s c h 21 Reading Ease formula correlated at the .64 l e v e l with the 1950 McCall Crabbs Test Lessons while they had correlated at the .70 l e v e l with the 1925 scores; The Dale - Chall formula had a co r r e l a t i o n of .71 with the 1950 scores which i s v i r t u a l l y the same as the .70 corre l a t i o n with the 1925 scores. As a r e s u l t of the consistency i n the Dale - Chall formula, Klare (1963) suggested that i t was the most accurate general-purpose formula up to 1960 (see appendix D f o r formulas and corrected grade l e v e l s ) . Fry Readability Graph The Fry Readability Graph f i r s t appeared i n 1965. Fry's Graph had two variables, s y l l a b l e s per 100 words and words per sentence. These two variables were entered on the graph and the re a d a b i l i t y score was then read d i r e c t l y from the graph. Pauk (1969) and l a t e r Vaughan (1976), in a study at the University of Arizona, found that Dale - Chall and Fry scores consistently agreed within one grade l e v e l . Klare (1975) also reported that the Fry Graph had been validated on both primary and secondary materials and the scores read from th i s graph had correlated highly with several well known formulas (see appendix E f o r graph). 22 SMOG Readability Formula McLaughlin (1969) published his SMOG re a d a b i l i t y formula which he believed was simpler, quicker and more v a l i d than e a r l i e r methods. McLaughlin stated that there was no need to count a l l s y l l a b l e s ; His formula counted the number of words of three or more s y l l a b l e s (polysyllable count) within 30 sentences. The SMOG formula operates on the premise that a) in English longer words are usually more precise and therefore extra e f f o r t i s needed to id e n t i f y their f u l l meaning, and b) longer sentences usually have a more complex grammatical structure and the reader has to reta i n several parts to understand the whole(McLaughlin, 1969). The SMOG formula, l i k e the majority of formulas considered here, was validated against the McCall Crabbs Test Lessons but instead of using the 50 - 75 percent c r i t e r i a used by previous formulas, McLaughlin used the 100 percent c r i t e r i o n and therefore found material to be one and a half to two grades higher than other formulas. The McLaughlin formula determines the independent l e v e l of the material, whereas the other formulas determine the f r u s t r a t i o n to i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l of the material. For example: i f the Dale - Chall formula finds a book to be at the 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 l e v e l for a c h i l d reading at the grade 4 l e v e l even i f he/she has teacher 23 assistance. The McLaughlin formula i s l i k e l y to f i n d the same book to be at the grade 6 l e v e l f or only a student at that l e v e l could understand the material without teacher assistance. The standard error on the SMOG i s 1.5 grades, s l i g h t l y higher than for other formulas, but McLaughlin f e e l s that the grade l e v e l corrections made by other formulas make his comparable (see appendix F). Bormuth Readability Formula Bormuth, (1969b) guestioned a l l re a d a b i l i t y formulas to that date and pointed out that no research had ever been published on the norms for the McCall Crabbs Test Lessons against which most formulas had been validated. Bormuth correlated cloze procedure percentage scores with reading achievement grade placement scores for the same students. Grade placement scores corresponding to the 35, 45, and 55 percent cloze procedure scores were determined. Using a cloze procedure c r i t e r i o n score of 45 percent, Bormuth found a cor r e l a t i o n of .83 and a cross validation of .92 with the d i f f i c u l t y of the 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 s u i t a b i l i t y of the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of materials, saying they were based upon ar b i t r a r y choice. He maintained 2 4 that his formula selected a l e v e l of performance which represented a l e v e l of comprehension d i f f i c u l t y at which negative outcomes of reading were minimized and po s i t i v e outcomes were maximized. Bormuth's "formula" appeared to have other advantages i n that i t had the capacity to measure sentence d i f f i c u l t y or even word d i f f i c u l t y along with passage d i f f i c u l t y . However, Bormuth cautioned that his study could account for only 8 5 percent of the observed variables i n the passages. He concluded that the test s t i l l lacked v a l i d i t y , that even thi s type of test could be fooled by easy words and d i f f i c u l t concepts, and that further research was needed. Cautions Concerning ReadabilityFormulas Any of the f i v e formulas discussed, excluding Bormuth's study, would appear to give the user a reasonably s i m i l a r level of r e a d a b i l i t y . The guestion i s , how much credence should devices for measuring r e a d a b i l i t y be given? Readability formulas^ whether they use word l i s t s or a s y l l a b l e count to measure word d i f f i c u l t y , are not able to take into account well known words used i n a symbolic or metaphoric sense (Dale and Chall; 1 9 4 8 ) . Also, they cannot measure the author's s t y l e , the e f f e c t 25 of typography or format on the reader, the i n t e r e s t l e v e l of the material* or the readers purpose, background, and f a m i l i a r i t y with the subject. These factors c e r t a i n l y a f f e c t r e a d a b i l i t y but do not appear to be measured by the r e a d a b i l i t y formula (Keonk, 1971 8 Daines and Mason 1972). Emphasizing the need for caution, Klare (1976) pointed out that the words i n a sentence or the sentences in a paragraph, could be scrambled and most formulas wculd find the r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l to be the same as the unscrambled version. Klare (1976) cited McLaughlin, (1966 ) who suggested that when reader's background information or l e v e l of inter e s t was high, then r e a d a b i l i t y became l e s s c r i t i c a l . He also stated that "Formula scores are, at best, f i r s t approximations to d i f f i c u l t y for readers, and human judgements are needed along with the scores" (p.141). Klare (1976), Hansell (1976), McLaughlin (1969) , and Dale and Chall (1948) cautioned that r e a d a b i l i t y scores were most useful when thought of i n terms of a range of d i f f i c u l t y rather than a precise grade l e v e l . Vaughan (1976) suggested that t h i s range should be plus or minus one f u l l grade. The general-use r e a d a b i l i t y formulas, therefore, provide a useful guideline f o r the subject teacher but they must be used in conjunction with teacher judgement. 2 6 The Cloze Procedure The cloze procedure was f i r s t introduced by Wilson L . Taylor i n 1 9 5 3 and at that time was seen as a new t o o l for assessing r e a d a b i l i t y . In the twenty-seven years since i t s conception, researchers have found a myriad of. uses for the new technigue. This study, however, focused only on cloze procedure as a measure of comprehension and r e a d a b i l i t y . Taylor 1 9 5 3 , explained that the term cloze was derived from a theory in gestalt psychology which suggests there i s a human tendency to complete a f a m i l i a r but incomplete pattern - to "see" a broken c i r c l e as a whole one, for example, by mentally closing up the gaps. Taylor pointed out that existing r e a d a b i l i t y formulas were not sensitive enough to st y l e and he c i t e d examples where formulas found the writings of Gertrude Stein and James Joyce to have a low r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l . He reasoned that t h i s was because r e a d a b i l i t y formulas which take into account such things as short and common words and short and simple sentences, have no means of measuring concept load* Taylor 1 9 5 3 stated: Cloze procedure counts no such elements. I t seems, however* to measure whatever e f f e c t s elements actually may have on r e a d a b i l i t y . And i t does so at the same time i t i s also 27 taking account of the influences of many other factors r e a d a b i l i t y formulas ignore. (p.417) This theory was supported by Russell (1978) who stated that cloze procedure had the capacity to measure such factors as sentence structure, s i z e of p r i n t , concept load, i n t e r e s t , language, and even author s t y l e . In two studies in 1953, Taylor attempted to show that: 1) the cloze procedure would rank passages taken from Flesch's How to Test Readability in the same order as did the Flesch formula and the Dale-Chall formula. (Klare 1963) 2) that the cloze procedure would "handle" passages that the two standard formulas could not due to th e i r i n a b i l i t y to handle concept load. For experiment 1 i t was found that the cloze procedure ranked the passages in the same order as did the formulas and for experiment 2 that the cloze procedure came closer than either formula to properly ranking the re a d a b i l i t y levels of the passages (p.427). Taylor (1953) admitted that r e a d a b i l i t y formulas did have some advantages over the cloze procedure in that they were quicker and easier to apply and for "standard" materials they seemed reasonably accurate. A problem arose in that i t was d i f f i c u l t to determine i n 28 advance, which materials were "standard". He concluded that : It i s a l i t t l e unreasonable that a single r e a d a b i l i t y score for an a r t i c l e on c a t t l e breeding should apply a l i k e to residents of Texas "cow country" and metropolitan Brooklyn. In such cases i t appears that the user of a formula might employ cloze procedures to check up on his results* (p*433) and also that: ...a cloze score appears to be a measure of the aggregate influences of a l l factors which inter a c t to affect the degree of correspondence between the language patterns of transmitter and receiver. (p.432) In 1957, Taylor stated that the r e a d a b i l i t y technique operated on the assumption that " a) the more readable a piece of writing i s , the better understood i t w i l l be even i f some words are l e f t out, and b) the better writing i s understood, the more l i k e l y i t i s that a reader can guess what words are missing" (p. 19). This was supported by Hafner (1966) who stated that the i n d i v i d u a l ' s choice (of words) was an index of his/her a b i l i t y to comprehend reading matter. Showing an early i n t e r e s t in cloze procedure, Bormuth (1966) c r i t i c i z e d e xisting r e a d a b i l i t y formulas 29 s t a t i n g : 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 a v a i l a b l e f o r m u l a s h e l p more than they h i n d e r . Because t h e s e f o r m u l a s are easy and i n e x p e n s i v e t o a p p l y , they enjoy w i d e s p r e a d use by p u b l i s h e r s and e d u c a t o r s . P u b l i s h e r s use them f o r " a d j u s t i n g " the d i f f i c u l t y of i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , and e d u c a t o r s use them t o d e c i d e i f i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s a r e s u i t a b l e f o r s t u d e n t s a t a g i v e n l e v e l of r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t y . C h a l l (1958) has made a s t r o n g case t h a t f o r m u l a s are not s u f f i c i e n t l y a c c u r a t e t o warrant e i t h e r o f t h e s e uses, (p.81 - 82) Bormuth (1967), p o i n t e d out t h a t u n t i l 1967 t h e r e was no means of d e t e r m i n i n g whether a g i v e n c l o z e p r o c e d u r e s c o r e r e p r e s e n t e d an " a c c e p t a b l e " l e v e l o f performance by a g i v e n s t u d e n t . He compared c l o z e p r o c e d u r e and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s produced from t h e same m a t e r i a l s and found t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t . S t i l l , i n 1967, he found i t n e c e s s a r y t o c a u t i o n r e a d e r s t h a t the use of 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 f u r t h e r e x p e r i m e n t s , he was a b l e t o c o n c l u d e : a) c l o z e r e a d a b i l i t y t e s t s p r o v i d e a v a l i d measure of a s t u d e n t ' s r e a d i n g comprehension a b i l i t y 30 b) the cloze r e a d a b i l i t y procedure provides a v a l i d method of measuring the comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s of passages c) cloze r e a d a b i l i t y scores can be used to judge the s u i t a b i l i t y of materials for a given students The cloze procedure became an object of i n t e r e s t and respect as i s evidenced by the rapid upsurge of studies dealing with t h i s topic in the 70*s. The cloze procedure has been validated not only as a r e a d a b i l i t y device but also as a teaching device. Structure of Cloze Procedure Passages The o r i g i n a l study by Taylor; (1953) set no optimum number of words per passage nor did i t specify the number of deletions per passage , rather i t suggested every nth word be deleted or that random deletions be made. In a p i l o t for the 1953 study Taylor found that a one in fiv e deletion system discriminated between subjects better than did a system involving fewer deletions. In a 1956 study Taylor concluded that " i t appears that an every fifth-word deletion system spaces blanks as far apart as they need be" (p. 45). The every f i f t h word deletion appears to be generally accepted i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Bormuth 1968, 1968b). Rankin and Culhane (1970) suggested that the every f i f t h word 31 deletion system was suitable f o r narrative material but that every tenth word might be more suitable for textual fact laden material. This was supported by Potter (1968) who suggested that i n some instances deletions should be one i n twelve. MacGinitie (1961) reported that he found no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n restoring omitted words when every 24th, 12th or 6th word was omitted but he found omitting every 3rd word made restoration d i f f i c u l t . O i l e r (1975) tested every 5th, 10th, 25th plus deletions and found, contrary to MacGinitie, that the longer the surrounding context, the easier the cloze item. Not a l l researchers have accepted the p r i n c i p l e of random or every nth word deletions. Taylor (1956) experimented with easy word versus hard word deletions and Eankin (1959) experimented with s t r u c t u r a l versus l e x i c a l deletions. Both concluded that the any-word deletion system produced generally superior r e s u l t s . In conclusion, the l i t e r a t u r e seems to indicate that the any-word deletion system i s the most p r a c t i c a l when measuring general comprehension or r e a d a b i l i t y and the every f i f t h word deletion system i s most popular when researching narrative material. The question of the necessity for fewer deletions i n fact laden materials appears to be unresolved. 3 2 Passage length The length of a passage required to produce a v a l i d cloze r e s u l t on the cloze procedure has been of concern to researchers* Taylor (1956) suggested a minimum 250 word passage. Bormuth (1968), Rankin (1970), and Walter (1974), concurred with t h i s opinion and the trend i n the l i t e r a t u r e appears to be to use t h i s minimum. Taylor (1956) suggested that cloze passages should contain f i f t y items which he f e l t was a large enough sample to allow easy and hard words to cancel out. Bormuth (1967) stated, "The tes t , for reasons of both convenience and r e l i a b i l i t y , should contain exactly f i f t y items" (p.294). There appears to be l i t t l e controversy i n the l i t e r a t u r e over the f i f t y word deletion practice and most researchers appear to adhere to i t . Boyce (1974) reported l i t t l e concurrance i n the l i t e r a t u r e as to amount of uninterrupted prose that should be l e f t before deletions began. Some studies started deletions from the f i r s t sentence, some l e f t the f i r s t sentence or two, and s t i l l others l e f t as much as the f i r s t paragraph i n t a c t . Boyce (1974) ci t e d O i l e r (1972) who wrote " as i s customary, the f i r s t and l a s t sentence of each paragraph were l e f t i n t a c t " (p. 15). Bormuth (1969b) and Rankin and Culhane (1969) reported using t h i s procedure but many neglected to report t h i s 33 aspect of t h e i r study. Pre-cloze,Versus Post-cloze Another aspect of the cloze procedure that i s of concern to researchers i s what Rankin (1965 ) has c a l l e d pre-cloze and post-cloze — pre-cloze being a cloze t e s t taken before reading the o r i g i n a l unmutilated passage and post-cloze being a test taken after reading the mutilated passage. Taylor, (1956) found post-cloze t e s t r e s u l t s correlated s l i g h t l y higher with scores on comprehension tests. Bormuth cited Rankin (1957) whose res u l t s supported those of Taylor. Bormuth (1968) however, theorized that these r e s u l t s were "...probably the r e s u l t of scores being more variable than when students had not read the passage..." (p. 192). He suggested that this effect could be obtained more e a s i l y by adding a few items to the t e s t . In 1968, he reported that "research shows that the two methods are equally v a l i d " (p. 193). Because of savings in time and preparation he f e l t i t was more desirable to use the pre-test technique. The pre-test technique has not gone without c r i t i c i s m . Boyce (1974) f e l t that subjects who f i l l e d i n blanks without an overview might treat the deletions as a series of subtests, accounting for some answers which were wrong i n the t o t a l context, appearing 34 correct i n the limited context of a sentence or group of words. Space Length In determining the length of spaces to be l e f t i n place of the deleted word in the mutilated passage, Taylor (1953) proposed that a l l spaces should be of uniform length so as to give the subjects no information on word length. This was r e i t e r a t e d by Taylor (1956, 1957), Bormuth (1967 1968, 1969) and Bortnick and Lopardo (1976) to name just a few* Although the use of a uniform space length appeared to be widely accepted i n the l i t e r a t u r e , not a l l researchers agreed i t was necessary. Anderson (1971) and Spooncer (1974) compared passages using the uniform space to passages using spaces the same length as the deleted word and found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two forms. 35 Selecting a Representative Passage Much attention has been given to the mechanics of the cloze procedure but how can researchers have confidence that the passage they have chosen i s representative of the material being tested? Bormuth (1968) suggested that six to twelve passages be randomly selected from the material being considered and that passages using the cloze procedure (based on. a minimum of 250 words and 50 deletions) be administered to 25 to 30 students; The mean score on each test was to be calculated and then the mean of means calculated. The passage with the mean score closest to the mean of means was to be selected as the representative passage. Bormuth emphasized that the more tests made, the more representative would be the passage chosen. He also cautioned that materials that showed a great deal of variance from passage to passage would be i l l suited to t h i s technique. Bormuth (1964) explained that within a cloze passage using every f i f t h word deletions* there were f i v e possible tests and he found that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the mean score on each. He did point out that the difference tended to diminish as more items were included. He concluded that using a single cloze procedure test over a passage should probably be avoided when precise determinations of 36 d i f f i c u l t y were needed and he cautioned that i f one passage were used, then observed differences must be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t so as to assure the differences did not a r i s e solely because of differences i n t e s t forms. Scoring Methods Much controversy has surrounded the question of scoring the cloze test; Does one accept synonyms or w i l l only the exact word deleted from the passage be accepted? Despite many i n t u i t i v e feelings to the contrary, the bulk of research tended to support exact word replacement; Taylor (1953), Rankin (1959) , Ruddell (1964), Bormuth (1967), Oiler (1972), and McKenna (1976) found l i t t l e difference between the two scoring methods in terms of v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . Bormuth (1969) suggested that exact scoring was, for most purposes, the most exact and economical* Russell (1978) argued that synonyms should not be accepted because: a) the research established did not support i t , b) the c r i t e r i o n for cloze procedure scores was on only exact responses * c) scoring became subjective when synonyms were used. This concern for the elimination of subjective judgement was also expressed by Culhane (1970), Walter 37 (1974), and Bortnick and Lopardo (1976). These findings are supportive of Taylor ( 1956) who stated "...the easiest ways of applying cloze procedure may be best f o r most uses", and also there i s "...no advantage to putting oneself to the trouble of judging and scoring synonyms" (p.48). However, Schoelles (1971) Bortnick and Lopardo (1 976), and McKenna (1976) have demonstrated that for diagnostic purposes in i n d i v i d u a l student assessment or for the purposes of teaching(Rankin, 1964), the scoring of synonyms can prove useful. Both McKenna (1976) and Asher (1976) noted that high achieving children scored s l i g h t l y higher when synonyms were counted. Tn an unmodified cloze procedure, synonyms are not counted, but s p e l l i n g errors, (when i t i s obvious the student has mispelled the correct word) are counted as correct. Improper word endings, however, should be counted as incorrect as Myers (1976) suggests that t h i s indicates the student i s not aware of the complete meaning of the sentence* F i n a l l y , the raw score for each student i s the number of exact word replacements. The percentage score i s calculated from the raw score and the t o t a l possible deletions. The r e s u l t s of research related to scoring was summarized by Jongsma (1971) who stated: The l i t e r a t u r e consistently shows the scoring 38 of exact replacements to be the most objective, e f f i c i e n t , and useful scoring system to use with the cloze procedure. Although s l i g h t l y higher r e l i a b i l i t y has been obtained, at times, by using other procedures such as synonym count, the increased time and su b j e c t i v i t y necessary for such systems do not warrant th e i r use. The exception to the synonym usage may be using the cloze procedure as a teaching technigue. (p. 7-8) CIoze Procedure Tests Validated Against Readability Formulas, Multiple-choice Tests and Standardized Tests In order for the cloze procedure to gain recognition as a device for measuring reading comprehension i t was necessary for t h i s procedure, l i k e r e a d a b i l i t y formulas before i t , to be validated against an established measure of reading comprehension. Bormuth (1967), cited Frederick (1955), Betts (1954), Flesch (1948), and Dale and Chall (1948) i n demonstrating that the multiple-choice comprehension test was a "widely known frame of reference accepted i n both r e a d a b i l i t y research and in classroom practice" (p.292). Bormuth further explained that when a student co r r e c t l y answered 75 - 90 percent of guestions over a 39 passage the material was considered suitable for supervised i n s t r u c t i o n . Scores above 90 percent indicated materials might be used for independent study. Scores below 75 percent indicated the material was too d i f f i c u l t for normal i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes (p.292). F i r s t attempts to validate the cloze procedure were made by Taylor (1953 ) against the Flesch and Dale-Chall r e a d a b i l i t y formulas which had themselves been validated against comprehension guestions. Taylor found the cloze procedure consistently ranked selected passages in the same order as the two formulas and that the cloze procedure handled concept load more adequately. As Thelen (1974) pointed out "unlike r e a d a b i l i t y formula, the cloze procedure evaluates the student's a b i l i t y to handle the text" (p. 26) . Subseguent research has most often used multiple-choice tests to validate cloze procedure scores* Bormuth (1968b) demonstrated the usefulness of t h i s approach when he pointed out that "...studies seem to show that cloze and conventional tests measure the same process" (p.431). Taylor (1953) found a cor r e l a t i o n of .76 between scores on a cloze procedure test and scores on a multiple-choice test made over the same passage. Bormuth (1968) c i t e d Bormuth (1967) who found correlations of .73 to .84 between cloze and conventional tests (constructed by Bormuth) over the same passages. When corrections for 40 u n r e l i a b i l i t i e s were made the correlations approached 1.00. Bormuth (1962) found a correlation of .92 between cloze procedure results and multiple-choice tests over the same passage. In a l a t e r study, Bormuth (1967), used four forms of the Gray Oral Reading Paragraphs and found correlations of .90 to .95 between cloze procedure scores and word recognition d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the paragraphs and correlations of .91 to .96 between the cloze procedure and comprehension d i f f i c u l t i e s * The cloze procedure was validated against the established multiple-choice comprehension test, but d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n has been expressed with the multiple- choice test i t s e l f and the cloze procedure has been looked to as a possible alternative to thi s measure of re a d a b i l i t y or comprehension. Bormuth (1963), (1968), Pennock (|973), Boyce (1974), M i l l e r (1975), and Bortnick and Lopardo (1976) pointed out that with multiple-choice or other forms of comprehension guestions, i t was d i f f i c u l t to determine i f the student's score reflected the d i f f i c u l t y of the passage, the d i f f i c u l t y of the guestions, the student's d i f f i c u l t y i n handling the questions or the s u b j e c t i v i t y of the marker* Also i t was d i f f i c u l t to know i f the questions adequately sampled the content of the passage. The time required to construct and scr u t i n i z e a comprehension test i n order to minimize the 41 aforementioned problems, i s beyond the time c o n s t r a i n t s of most p r a c t i t i o n e r s . T h i s l e d T a y l o r (1957) t o conclude t h a t : Although c l o z e and comprehension t e s t s were g e n e r a l l y s i m i l a r i n the k i n d s of r e s u l t s they y i e l d e d , the two kinds of t e s t s were very d i f f e r e n t i n c o s t , e f f o r t , and time r e q u i r e d f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n . The advantages seem t o be with the c l o z e procedure i n g e n e r a l , and the 'any* method of m u t i l a t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r , (p.25) B o r t n i c k and Lopardo (1976) pointed out that a c l o z e procedure t e s t was o b j e c t i v e l y d e r i v e d which allowed " d i f f e r e n t t e s t w r i t e r s t o produce r e l i a b l e and e q u i v a l e n t instruments over the same m a t e r i a l " (p.116). The l i t e r a t u r e , then, appears to i n d i c a t e that the c l o z e procedure i s a more r e l i a b l e , and t h e r e f o r e a s u p e r i o r , measure of comprehension (Bormuth 1963 , M i l l e r and Coleman 1967 , Bdrmuth 1969b). Having e s t a b l i s h e d the v a l i d i t y of the c l o z e procedure and i t s suggested s u p e r i o r i t y over comprehension questions based on a passage, r e s e a r c h e r s such as Bormuth and Coleman have now begun developing r e a d a b i l i t y formulas v a l i d a t e d against t e s t r e s u l t s u s i n g the c l o z e procedure. I t appears that more i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s needed before i t can be determined i f 42 r e a d a b i l i t y formulas derived from cloze procedure are more or less v a l i d than multiple-choice derived formulas* The co r r e l a t i o n of cloze procedure r e s u l t s with re s u l t s on standardized tests i s of v i t a l interest to t h i s study which has used a standardized test as a measure of the students' reading grade l e v e l . Bormuth (1963) cited Fletcher ( 1955) and Rankin (1957) who found s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between cloze procedure and an assortment of standardized reading t e s t s . Jones and P i k u l s k i (1974), found a correlation of .73 between the cloze procedure and the Comprehensive Test of Basic S k i l l s . Smith and Zink (1977) found a c o r r e l a t i o n .74 between the t o t a l scores of the Davis Reading Test Form 2A and cloze procedure scores made over the same passages* They therefore reported that "The high co r r e l a t i o n between scores on the DRT and the cloze t e s t derived from the same instrument indicates that the cloze test measured the construct reading comprehension as measured by the standardized t e s t " (p.397). Other studies by Jenkinson (1957) , Ruddell ( 1963) , Friedman (1964) , (cited in Rankin 1965)* Bormuth ( 1965), Tinzmann and Thompson (1977) found correlations that ranged from approximately .70 to *85. Weaver and Kingston (1963), using the t o t a l raw score of the Davis Reading Test^ found a low c o r r e l a t i o n between cloze 43 procedure r e s u l t s and standardized tests i n respect to 11 verbal comprehension." They found that the a b i l i t i e s required to complete a cloze procedure were related to redundancy u t i l i z a t i o n * Rankin (1965) pointed out that only the Weaver and Kingston study found a low corr e l a t i o n between the cloze and standardized t e s t . Bormuth (1969) cautioned that the data used by Weaver and Kingston should be questioned on several accounts. Research seems to indicate that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between cloze procedure scores and scores on standardized tests. This being the case, many would argue that the cioze i s the preferable t e s t i n g device* Jones and Pi k u l s k i (1974) pointed out that the accuracy of standardized tests i n precisely i d e n t i f y i n g reading achievement was guestionable. Bortnick and Lopardo (1976) explained that "Standardized tests are limited to normative interpretations, which permits only comparison of one group or i n d i v i d u a l with the norm population" (p. 114). Rakes and McWilliams (1978) also pointed out that cloze procedure or other informal tests are less expensive than standardized t e s t batteries* Taking into consideration the aforementioned c r i t i c i s m s i t appears that the l i t e r a t u r e i s less c r i t i c a l of standardized tests than of non-standardized multiple-choice or completion comprehension questions. It would appear advisable to use the former when 44 attempting to establish the v a l i d i t y of the cloze procedure over a given passage. Frame of Reference for Cloze Procedure Scores For some time the main weakness of the cloze procedure as a measure of r e a d a b i l i t y was the absence of c r i t e r i a f o r interpreting ' raw scores. The r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of two or more passages could be determined but no interpretation could be placed upon the d i f f i c u l t y of each passage. (Rankin 1 9 7 0 cited in Van Rooy 1 9 7 3 p. 7) In an attempt to establish such c r i t e r i a * standards set by Thorndike ( 1 9 1 7 ) , and Betts ( 1 9 5 4 ) have been accepted. They indicated that materials were at a c h i l d ' s i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l when he/she was able to answer corre c t l y 7 5 percent of the questions asked him/her about the passage, and at his/her independent l e v e l when he/she could answer 9 0 percent; Materials on which the c h i l d scored below 7 5 percent were considered too d i f f i c u l t for i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes. In his f i r s t attempt to establish a frame cf reference for cloze scores Bormuth ( 1 9 6 7 ) compared cloze procedure and multiple-choice comprehension tests administered over 45 the same passages and to the same readers. He found a cloze score of 38 percent was comparable to a multiple- choice score of 75 percent and a cloze score of 50 percent was comparable to a multiple-choice score of 90 percent. He cautioned that when multiple-choice scores were corrected for guessing, a cloze score of 43 was reguired to reach the 75 percent multiple-choice c r i t e r i o n . In t h i s 1967 study Bormuth observed c e i l i n g e f f e c t s on the multiple-choice scores which may have led to the low cloze scores when compared to the multiple- choice scores. The following year Bormuth undertook a further investigation, t h i s time using the Gray Oral Reading „;.Tests . "Two of the four paragraphs on each l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y were randomly assigned to each subject who took these two paragraphs as cloze t e s t s . The complementary pair of paragraphs was taken by the same subject as or a l reading t e s t s " (Bormuth 1968). In th i s study Bormuth found cloze procedure scores of 44 percent and 57 percent comparable to comprehension c r i t e r i o n scores of 75 and 90 percent; Bormuth appears to view the 1968 study as the most r e l i a b l e f o r he quoted these results in subseguent papers; Rankin and Culhane (1969) replicated the Bormuth study and found cloze procedure scores of 41 percent and 61 percent respectively; comparable to c r i t e r i o n scores of 75 and 90 percent; This led Rankin and Culhane to conclude 46 that the 1968 Bormuth scores were v a l i d . Because these r e s u l t s vary s l i g h t l y the l i t e r a t u r e seems to recommend that students whose scores f a l l between 40 and 59 percent would p r o f i t from i n s t r u c t i o n on that material whereas students scoring below 40 percent would fi n d the material too d i f f i c u l t for i n s t r u c t i o n . Those scoring s i x t y or above would f i n d the material suitable f o r independent study A Pennock (1973) and Dishner (1973) reported that students scoring above 65 percent were l i k e l y to gain l i t t l e new information from that material A With the c r i t e r i a for interpreting raw cloze scores now i n place the p r a c t i t i o n e r can have some degree of confidence in determining the s u i t a b i l i t y of materials for a given student; Cr i t i c i s m s of the Cloze Procedure Although the l i t e r a t u r e appears to support both the v a l i d i t y and a p p l i c a b i l i t y of cloze procedure* i t has not gone without c r i t i c i s m . The major c r i t i c i s m , or caution to be considered, concerns the fact that any cloze procedure test constructed over a given passage cannot be assumed to be of the same d i f f i c u l t y as any other cloze procedure test constructed over the same passage. I f an every f i f t h word deletion system i s used 47 there are fi v e possible cloze procedure tests. If an every tenth word deletion system i s used there are ten possible tests and so on. This concern was expressed by both Bormuth (T964) and Boyce (1974). Bormuth found the longer the tes t the less v a r i a b i l i t y occurred but he suggested that for research purposes, more than one test form be used. Boyce explained that the v a r i a b i l i t y was not a problem i f the test was being used to rank students but i t might pose problems when the score was used to compare a student's score to an established c r i t e r i o n score and might r e s u l t in an incorrect decision as to the s u i t a b i l i t y of material for a student. Boyce (1978) found that the length of a word had a d e f i n i t e influence on the student's a b i l i t y to replace the word. The mean replacement rate f o r one and two s y l l a b l e words was 73.4 percent whereas the replacement rate for words seven l e t t e r s or longer was 21.2 percent; Recognizing that word length i s c e r t a i n l y not the only factor a f f e c t i n g replacement ease, the pr a c t i t i o n e r may s t i l l be- well advised to use professional judgement when sele c t i n g the passage to make sure i t i s not weighted towards either long or short words. It should be kept in mind that scores are to be interpreted within very wide ranges l a b e l l e d 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. I t does not appear that they were meant to be r i g i d l y compared to 48 c r i t e r i o n scores. Other c r i t i c i s m s of the cloze procedure included studies by Sauer (1969, reported by Riley 1973) and Kirby (1967 c i t e d by Walter 1974) who found that the cloze procedure did not adequately assess the reading l e v e l s of students i n the lower elementary grades. Kirby (1968) found that students whose word recognition a b i l i t i e s were adeguate performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better on the cloze procedure than those with less developed recognition s k i l l s * Pollock (1974) compared cloze procedure scores to the informal reading inventory scores of subjects from both a middle and upper socioeconomic l e v e l and a lower socioeconomic l e v e l and concluded that the cloze procedure yielded depressed scores for students from lower socioeconomic lev e l s and was therefore inappropriate for use with such students. F i n a l l y Tuinman ( 1975) suggested that the cloze procedure measures l o c a l redundancy more than the comprehension of major ideas. These l i m i t a t i o n i n the cloze procedure are c e r t a i n l y useful background knowledge for the p r a c t i t i o n e r but they would not appear to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n stature nor s i g n i f i c a n t l y supported in the l i t e r a t u r e to i n any way a f f e c t the confidence with which the cloze procedure might be used in an average classroom. 49 Modifications on the Cloze Procedure Over the years various researchers have proposed numerous alte r a t i o n s or modifications to the cloze procedure. A streamlined sampling process, most useful for the p r a c t i t i o n e r , was proposed by Pennock (1973). He suggested that rather than prepare six to twelve passages to be tested on a sample population, that a r e a d a b i l i t y formula be applied to the passages and the passage that came closest to the mean re a d a b i l i t y of a l l the passages should be prepared as a cloze procedure. Such a process would save hours of work and as such would increase the l i k e l i h o o d of the cloze procedure being used. Most other proposals have varied more widely a f i e l d from the t r a d i t i o n a l cloze procedure. Hafner (1965) conducted a study using deletions of l e t t e r s from words and found a high c o r r e l a t i o n between t h i s test and reading r e s u l t s . Carver (1974) constructed a test i n which every second word contained only the f i r s t l e t t e r . One in every f i v e of these i n i t i a l l e t t e r s was replaced with an incorrect l e t t e r . Subjects were asked to make the corrections and f i l l i n the blanks. Carver theorized that this type of test gave the reader a chunk of information to a s s i s t i n the r e t r i e v a l of the correct word. Although Carver indicated that further research was required he reported that the r e s u l t s suggested t h i s 50 type of test was as vali d as the cloze procedure and more r e l i a b l e i n measuring reading gain. Cunningham and Cunningham (1978) compared the cloze procedure with a limited cloze procedure in which the deleted words were randomly ordered and placed above the passage. In study one they found the percentage range of 73 - 93 percent was eguivalent to the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l range on the cloze procedure and i n study two they found a range of 60 - 81 percent. They concluded that the limited cloze procedure was "as v a l i d , r e l i a b l e , objective and p r a c t i c a l as regular cloze, but l e s s interpretable" (p.211). Entin and Klare ( 1978) studied the implication of using a dash for each l e t t e r of the deleted word; Two sets of deletions were used i n the study - the same two for the s o l i d l i n e and dash forms. This was done to minimize the p o s s i b i l i t y of h i t t i n g a single unrepresentative easy or d i f f i c u l t passage* Subjects were also given a multiple-choice test. As expected cloze procedure scores on the dash form were higher but t h e i r correlation with the multiple-choice scores was about the same as the standard format. Entin and Klare concluded that "the dash format should be at least as good a measure of comprehension as the standard format" (p.427). Anderson (1971) and Spooncer (1974) found that when the standard length blank was replaced by a blank the 51 same size as the deleted word, the cloze procedure scores were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased. Boyce (1974) cit e d Anderson (1971) who further suggested cloze procedure passages could be constructed by gluing paper over the words in the o r i g i n a l passage that were to be deleted. The passage could then be photocopied. Boyce suggested that t h i s would give the student a l l the contextual clues available in regular reading. He I further s i m p l i f i e d the Anderson process by using l i g u i d paper to delete the words. Because he found that the space l e f t was often too small to allow the student to print the word* he numbered the blanks and provided a separate numbered answer sheet. Unfortunately, the validy of this method, as opposed to the cloze procedure, was not tested. The most recent innovation i n the cloze procedure was outlined by McCabe (1979) . The McCabe proposal i s outlined i n d e t a i l i n Chapter I. Studies by Hafner (1965) who found that the deletion of l e t t e r s had a high c o r r e l a t i o n with reading r e s u l t s , and Carver (1974) who supported the concept of giving the reader a chunk of information to a s s i s t in r e t r i e v a l * lend credence to McCabe's proposal which involves the deletion of l e t t e r s , p a r t i a l words and whole words. I t was the purpose of t h i s research to determine the validy of t h i s approach i n r e l a t i o n to the Stanford Diagnostic. 52 CHAPTER III A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY The entire population of grade nine students i n a suburban d i s t r i c t i n B r i t i s h Columbia was tested f o r reading achievement as measured by the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Blue Level, Form A (hereafter referred to as Stanford Diagnostic ). A passage was then selected using the Fry Readability Graph. A cloze procedure, a Beginning of the Page Procedure (B.O.P.P.) and an "instant" Beginning of the Page Procedure were constructed over t h i s same passage* The cloze procedure and modified clcze procedure tests were then distributed randomly to every t h i r d student. Students were instructed to f i l l i n the blanks with the exact word, words or parts of words which had been deleted* Only exact replacements of deletions were scored. Selection of Subjects Subjects tested were grade nine students i n a middle class suburban d i s t r i c t * The area was a . working c l a s s d i s t r i c t with a high percentage of single parent f a m i l i e s . The percentage of immigrant families was 53 minute. Testing took place i n A p r i l within the English classroom as a l l grade nine students took English over the entire year; Of the two hundred and t h i r t y - n i n e students who took part in testing only 196 scores could be considered due to absenteeism on either of the t e s t i n g days. One hundred and six of these subjects were male and 90 were female. Procedures for Administering and Scoring the Stanford Diagnostic Heading Test The Stanford Diagnostic was designed to measure the reading c a p a b i l i t i e s of students in grades 9 through 12 plus college. I t was designed to provide p a r t i c u l a r l y accurate assessment of low-achieving students but did not appear to give an equally accurate assessment of superior readers; Over a period of one week, a l l grade 9 students were administered the comprehension section of the Stanford Diagnostic. Each student was given a test booklet and an answer sheet. They were instructed to darken in the c i r c l e corresponding to the answer they chose. T h i r t y - f i v e minutes was allowed for the administration of the comprehension subtest and t h i s was s t r i c t l y adhered to; When time had expired, tests were col l e c t e d and hand scored using an answer s t e n c i l ; The t o t a l comprehension raw score was computed; 54 Procedures.for Selecting the Passage The passage was selected from the Barnell L o f t , S p e c i f i c S k i l l s Series, Book I, "Getting the Facts". This book i s recommended for students working at the grade 9 i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l ; Passages in the book were assessed in order to find a selection reasonably free of proper nouns and numbers; The Fry Readability Graph was then applied to two one hundred word segments of the passage and both were found to have a r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l of grade 7.5. As the Fry Graph measures f r u s t r a t i o n to independent l e v e l i t was f e l t that t h i s passage was suitable for the instruction of an average student i n the eighth month cf grade 9. Procedures for Constructing, Administering and Marking the Cloze^Procedure A f i f t y item cloze procedure test was constructed using a selection found suitable by the Fry Graph. The f i r s t and l a s t sentences were l e f t i n t a c t and as suggested by Taylor (1956), Bormuth ( 1968) and others, an every f i f t h word deletion pattern was used. The standard length space was employed as th i s appeared to be the most commonly used procedure (Taylor 1956, 1957, Bormuth 1967, 1968, 1969, Bortnick and Lopardo 1976) although Anderson (1971) and Spooncer (1974) found the 55 length of the space made no s i g n i f i c a n t difference to test r e s u l t s . Students were given the cloze test in t h e i r English classes within one week of taking the Stanford Diagnostics The cloze procedure was given randomly to every t h i r d student who was instructed to put his/her name on his/her paper. This was to allow correlation of cloze procedure results to standardized test r e s u l t s and also to create a seriousness often absent when names are not required. Using what Rankin (1965) c a l l e d the pre- cloze technigue, students were asked to f i l l i n the deleted words without having read the unmutilated passage. It was explained that they were not expected to be able to f i l l i n a l l the spaces but that a score of just twenty out of f i f t y was equivalent to seventy-five percent on a multiple-choice exam. Students were t o l d that they could take as much time as they required to complete the test. The cloze procedure tests were hand scored and only exact replacements of deleted words were accepted. Minor s p e l l i n g errors, where i t was cl e a r that the deleted word was intended , were accepted. Scores were multiplied by two to obtain a percentage. (see appendix G for the cloze procedure) 56 Procedures for Constructing; Administering and Marking the,Beginning„of_the Page Procedure The passage used for the standard cloze procedure test was typed onto a 9 1/2 by 11 inch (24 cm high by 27.5 cm wide) piece of white paper. The typewriter was set for one and a half spaces between l i n e s : A s t r i p of paper 1/10th the length of the average l i n e was then glued one inch (2.5 cm) from the l e f t hand margin: The f i r s t and l a s t sentences were l e f t i n t a c t so the s t r i p of paper did not intersect the l i n e s containing these sentences; As noted by Boyce (1974), the space l e f t when a typewritten word i s deleted i s often too small to allow a student to reproduce the word. Each deletion was therefore numbered and a space with the corresponding number was provided at the end of each l i n e . This master B . O i P . P . was then photocopied to provide the required number'of tests. The B.O.P.P. was randomly d i s t r i b u t e d to another one-third of the students who were also required to write t h e i r names on the papers. They were instructed that a word; words or parts of words were missing and on the space provided i n the r i g h t hand margin; they were to write in the exact words that had been deleted. Again the students were given as much time as they required and again the pre-cloze procedure was employed; The scoring procedure was not discussed by McCabe 5 7 but i t was decided that only exact replacements and reasonable s p e l l i n g errors would be credited. One mark was given for each p a r t i a l word replaced and two marks were given for every whole word replaced. The students' points were added as were the t o t a l possible test points and a percentage score was calculated for each student, (see appendix H for the B.O.P.P.) Procedures f o r Constructing, Administering and Marking the " Instant " Beginning of the Page Procedure The passage used for the cloze procedure and the B.O.P.P. was also used for the "instant" B.O.P.P. The sele c t i o n was photocopied, and a s t r i p of paper one- tenth the length of the average l i n e was glued 1 inch (2.5 cm) from the l e f t margin, leaving the f i r s t and l a s t sentences i n t a c t . The deletions were once again numbered and a uniform blank space with the corresponding number was provided in the right hand margin. (appendix I) The res u l t i n g test was photocopied to provide the required number of tests f o r the f i n a l 1/3 of the experimental population. The "instant" B.O.P.P. l i k e the cloze procedure and the B.O.P.P., was administered during the English period and within one week of taking the Stanford Diagnostic. Students were given as much time as they required and 58 t h e p r e - c l o z e p r o c e d u r e was e m p l o y e d . T h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o s t u d e n t s w e r e t h e same a s t h o s e g i v e n f o r t h e B . O . P . P . a n d t h e s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s w e r e a l s o t h e s a m e . I n b o t h t h e B . O . P . P . a n d t h e " i n s t a n t " B . O . P . P . a s i n t h e c l o z e p r o c e d u r e , s t u d e n t s w e r e e n c o u r a g e d t o r e c o r d t h e i r r e a c t i o n s t o t h e t e s t . A n a l y s i s o f t h e D a t a 1. T h e mean a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n was c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h e r a w s c o r e s o n t h e S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c f o r e a c h o f t h e t h r e e t e s t g r o u p s , c l o z e p r o c e d u r e , B . O . P . P . a n d " i n s t a n t " B . O . P . P . Means a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s w e r e a l s o c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h e t o t a l m a l e a n d f e m a l e p o p u l a t i o n s . ( T a b l e s I - I I ) 2. A t a b l e i s p r o v i d e d d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s u b j e c t s b y s e x f o r e a c h c e l l ; ( T a b l e I V ) 3. A o n e way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (an F S t a t i s t i c ) w a s c a l c u l a t e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s e x d i f f e r e n c e f o r S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c mean s c o r e s f o r t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n a n d f o r g r o u p s c l o z e p r o c e d u r e , B . O . P . P . a n d " i n s t a n t " B . O . P . P . ( T a b l e I I I ) 59 Histograms were prepared for the t o t a l population and for subgroups cloze procedure* B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P., based on raw scores from the Stanford Diagnostic. The percent scores for groups cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. were also presented in histograms. (Figures I VII) The mean and standard deviation was prepared for the percentage scores on each of the subgroups* cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. The mean for sex and the significance of the difference between means was also calculated. (Tables V, VI, VII) An estimated equivalency graph was prepared, comparing scores on the cloze procedure, the B.O.P.P. and the "instant" B.O.P.P. to both the raw scores and the grade scores on the Stanford Diagnostic. (Table IX) A prediction equation and a corresponding scatter plot was prepared f o r each of the groups cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. using each group as the c r i t e r i o n and the Stanford Diagnostic Test as the predictor. (Figure VIII - X) 60 The predicted regression l i n e s for each group cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. were drawn on a single graph; (Figure XI) Pearson, product-moment correlations were computed for cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. percentage scores with Stanford Diagnostic raw scores. (Table X) The sig n i f i c a n c e of the correlations of the cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. with the Stanford Diagnostic were computed. (Table XI) (0000*1 = HILdltt TVAH3MI) 96L x + I 9' 000' :89 + 0 •o 000' •Z.9 XX + z 0' " L 000 " "99 XXXX + h 0' 'Z 000" '99 XXXXXXX + L 9 ' : e 000 " :IJS XXXXXXX+ L 9 ' 000' "£9 XXXXXXX+ L 9 ' • e o o o : '29 XXXXX+ 9 9 ' 000' :i9 XXXXXXXXX+ 6 9 ' •ii 000 ' '09 XX + z 0' ' i 000' '6tj XXXXX+ s 9 ' • z 000' '8t7 XXXXXX+ 9 I ' • e 000' 'Ltl XXXXX+ 9 9 1 : s 000 ' • 9t7 XXXXXXX+ L 9 ' £ 000' '9tj XXXXXX+ 9 I '£ 000 ' XX + z 0 ' 'I 000' • e n XXXX + 17 0 •z 000' •Zii XXXXXXXX+ 8 I ' 'ii 000' •itl XXXXXXX+ L 9 ' £ 000 ' '017 XXXXXXXXX+ 6 9 ' •ti 000' • 6 e XXX + e S ' " I 000' •8£ XXXXXXXXXX+ 01 I • s 000' •L£ XXXXXXXXX+ 6 9 1 "ii 000' '9£ XXXX + 17 0 ' 'Z 000 ' "9£ XXXXX+ 9 9 'Z 0 00' ' 1 7 £ XXXXX+ 9 9 'Z 000' '££ XXXX + 17 0' •z 000' 'Z£ XXXXXXXXXXX+ U 9 ' '9 000' ' I £ XXXX + t7 0 'Z 000' '.0£ XXXX + 17 0 ' 'Z 000' '6Z XXXXX+ s 9 :z 000' •8Z XXXXXXX+ L 9 ' £ 000' 'Lz XXXXXX+ 9 I '£ 000' '9Z XX + z 0' 'I 000' "92 XX + z 0 'I 000 •tiz XXX + £ a 'I 000' •£Z XX + z 0 'I 000' •zz XX + z 0' ' I 000' ' IZ + 0 • o 000' 'OZ x + I 9 ' 000 ' 'Si XX + z 0' " I 000 ' 81 + 0 • o 000' 'LI + 0 • o . 000' '91 x + L 9' 000 ' 91 x + I 9 000' " 6 =x Hova) aaoiNVJ.su aqa i s n p o SUSIK iKioaaiw •MOII.V'indOd 1V10J, am. aoa saaoos ftva D I I S O N O V I Q a a o a o i s i aaooia FIGURE 1 HISTOGRAM MIDPOINT HISTTo COUNT FOR 1 A STANFORD (EACH X= 1) 0. 0. 0 + 6. 000 0. 0 + 12.000 . 5 1 + X 18.000 2. 0 4 + XXXX 24.000 8. 7 17 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 30.000 17. 9 35 + XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 36.000 18. 4 36 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 42.000 18. 4 36 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 48.000 17. 3 34 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 54.000 16. 3 32 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 60.000 • 5 1 +x TOTAL 196 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 6. 0000) FIGURE 1 STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES FOR THE TOTAL POPULATION FIGURE 2 STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES FOR THE SUBGROUP CLOZE PROCEDURE HISTOGRAM <1> TREATMENT:CLOZE PROCEDURE MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 1 .STANFORD (EACH X= 1 5 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 + X 1 6 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 1 7 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 1 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 + X 1 9 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 2 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 + x 2 3 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 2 4 . 0 Q 0 0 . 0 + 2 5 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 2 6 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 2 7 . 0 0 0 4 . 7 3 + XXX 2 8 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 2 9 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 3 1 . 0 0 0 9 . 4 6 +XXXXXX 3 2 . 0 0 0 4 . 7 3 + XXX 3 3 . 0 0 0 4 . 7 3 + XXX 3 4 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 3 5 . 0 0 0 4 . 7 3 + XXX 3 6 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 3 7 . 0 0 0 4 . 7 3 + XXX 3 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 + X 3 9 . 0 0 0 7 . 8 5 +XXXXX 4 0 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 4 1 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 4 2 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 4 3 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 4 4 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 4 5 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 4 6 . 0 0 0 4 . 7 3 + XXX 4 7 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 4 8 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 +xx 4 9 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 5 0 . 0 0 0 6 . 3 , 4 + XXXX 5 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 5 2 . 0 0 0 4 . 7 3 + XXX 5 3 . 0 0 0 4 . 7 3 + XXX 5 4 . 0 0 0 1 . 6 1 +x 5 5 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX TOTAL 6 4 (INTERVAL. WIDTH = 1 . 0 0 0 0 ) F I G U R E 2 H I S T O G R A M < 1 > T R E A T M E N T : C L O Z E P R O C E D U R E M I D P O I N T H I S T % C O U N T F O R 1 . S T A N F O R D ( E A C H X= 0 . 0 . 0 + 6 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 1 2 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 1 8 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + X X 2 4 . 0 0 0 6 . 3 4 + X X X X 3 0 . 0 0 0 2 3 . 4 1 5 + X X X X X X X X X x x x x x x 3 6 . 0 0 0 2 0 . 3 1 3 + X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 2 . 0 0 0 1 5 . 6 1 0 + X X X X X X X X X X 4 8 . 0 0 0 1 7 . 2 11 + X X X X X X X X X X X 5 4 . 0 0 0 1 4 . 1 9 + X X X X X X X X X 6 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + T O T A L 6 4 ( I N T E R V A L W I D T H F I G U R E 2 S T A N F O R D D I A G N O S T I C RAW S C O R E S F O R T H E S U B G R O U P C L O Z E P R O C E D U R E FIGURE 3 STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES FOR THE SUBGROUP B.O.P.P. HISTOGRAM <2> TREATMENT:B.0.P.P. MIDPOINT HIS1% COUNT FOR 1.STANFORD (EACH X= 1 9 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + X 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 1 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + X 2 2 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 2 3 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 4 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 2 5 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 2 6 . 0 0 0 6 . 0 4 + XXXX 2 7 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 2 8 . 0 0 0 4. 5 3 + XXX 2 9 . 0 0 0 4. 5 3 + XXX 3 0 . 0 0 0 4 . 5 3 + XXX 3 1 . 0 0 0 4. 5 3 + XXX 3 2 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 3 3 . 0 0 0 0* 0 + 3 4 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 2 + XX 3 5 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 3 6 . 0 0 0 7 . 5 5 +XXXXX 3 7 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 2 + XX 3 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 3 9 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 2 + XX 4 0 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 +x 4 1 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 2 + XX 4 2 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x . 4 3 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 4 4 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 4 5 . 0 0 0 6. 0 4 + XXXX 4 6 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 4 7 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 2 + XX 4 8 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 2 + XX 4 9 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 +x 5 0 . 0 0 0 4 . 5 3 + XXX 5 1 . 0 0 0 6. 0 4 + XXXX 5 2 . 0 0 0 6 . 0 4 + XXXX 5 3 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 2 + XX 5 4 . 0 0 0 3 . 0 2 + XX 5 5 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 +x 5 6 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x TOTAL 6 7 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 1 . 0 0 0 0 ) FIGURE 3 HISTOGRAM <2> TREATMENT:B.0.P.P. MIDPOINT EISH% COUNT FOR 1.STANFORD (EACH X= 0. 0. 0 + 6. 000 0. 0 + 12. 000 0. 0 + 18. 000 1. 5 1 + X 24. 000 11. 9 8 +XXXXXXXX 30. 000 20. 9 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 36. 000 14. 9 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 42. 000 10. 4 7 +XXXXXXX 48. 000 19. 4 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 54. 000 20. 9 14 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 60. 000 0. 0 + TOTAL 67 . (INTERVAL WIDTH = 6.0000) FIGURE 3 STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES FOR THE SUBGROUP B.O.P.P. F I G U R E 4 S T A N F O R D D I A G N O S T I C RAW S C O R E S F O R T H E S U B G R O U P " I N S T A N T " B . O . P . P . H I S T O G R A M <3> T R E A T M E N T : " I N S T A N T " B . C . P . P . M I D P O I N T EISH% C O U N T F O R 1 . S T A N F O R D ( E A C H X= 9 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + X 1 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 1 9 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 1 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 2 2 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 3 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 2 4 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 2 5 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 6 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 2 7 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + XXX 2 8 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 9 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 3 0 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 3 1 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 3 2 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 3 3 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 3 4 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 3 5 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 3 6 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + XXX 3 7 . 0 0 0 7 . 7 5 +XXXXX 3 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 3 9 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 4 0 . 0 0 0 7 . 7 5 +XXXXX 4 1 . 0 0 0 7 . 7 5 +XXXXX 4 2 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 4 3 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 4 4 . 0 0 0 6 . 2 4 + XXXX 4 5 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + XXX 4 6 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 4 7 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + XXX 4 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 4 9 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 5 0 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 5 1 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 5 2 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 5 3 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + XX 5 4 . 0 0 0 6 . 2 4 + XXXX 5 5 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 5 6 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 5 7 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 5 8 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x T O T A L 6 5 ( I N T E R V A L W I D T H = 1 . 0 0 0 0 ) FIGURE 4 HISTOGRAM < 3 > TREATMENT: "INSTANT" B.-O.P.P. MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 1.STANFORD (EACH X= 0 . 0 . 0 + 6 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 1 2 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 1 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 2 4 . 0 0 0 7 . 7 5 +XXXXX 3 0 . 0 0 0 9 : 2 6 +XXXXXX 3 6 . 0 0 0 2 0 . 0 1 3 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX • 4 2 . 0 0 0 2 9 . 2 1 9 + X X X 7 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4 8 . 0 0 0 1 5 . 4 1 0 +XXXXXXXXXX 5 4 . 0 0 0 1 3 . 8 9 +XXXXXXXXX 6 0 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x TOTAL 6 5 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 6 . 0 0 0 0 ) FIGURE 4 STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES FOR THE SUBGROUP "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. FIGURE 5 PERCENT SCORES FOR THE GROUP CLOZE PROCEDURE MIDPOINT HIST% COUNT FOR 5.PERCENT (EACH X= 1) 10.000 1.6 1 + X 12.000 0. 0 + 14.000 1.6 1 + X 16.000 0. 0 + 18.000 3. 1 2 + X X 20.000 3. 1 2 + 7J 22.000 3. 1 2 + XX 24.000 3. 1 2 + X X 26.000 3. 1 2 + X X 28.000 1. 6 1 +x 30.000 1.6 1 +x 32.000 9.4 6 +XXXXXX 34.000 1.6 1 +x 36.000 4.7 3 + X X X 38.000 14. 1 9 +XXXXXXXXX 40.000 6. 3 4 + X X X X 42.000 3. 1 2 + XX 44.000 4.7 3 + X X X 46.000 9.4 6 +XXXXXX 48.000 4.7 3 + X X X 50.000 3. 1 2 + XX 52.000 0. 0 + 54.000 6.3 4 + X X X X 56.000 3. 1 2 + X X 58.000 3. 1 2 + X X 60.000 0. 0 + 62.000 0. 0 + 64.000 0. 0 + 66.000 3. 1 2 +XX 68.000 0. 0 + 70.000 0. 0 + 72.000 1.6 1 +x TOTAL 64 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 2.0000) FIGURE 5 HISTOGRAM <1> TREATMENT:CLOZE PROCEDURE MIDPOINT HIST7c COUNT FOR 5.PERCENT (EACH 0. 0. 0 + 10.000 3. 1 2 + XX 20.000 12.5 8 +XXXXXXXX 30.000 17. 2 1 1 +XXXXXXXXXXX 40.000 32. 8 21 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 50.000 23. 4 15 +XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 60.000 6. 3 4 + XXXX 70.000 4. 7 3 + XXX 80.000 0. 0 + 90.000 0. 0 + 100.00 0. 0 + TOTAL FIGURE 5 64 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 10.000) PERCENT SCORES FOR THE GROUP CLOZE PROCEDURE 71 FIGURE 6 PERCENT SCORES FOR THE GROUP B.O.P.P. MIDPOINT HIST* COUNT FOR 5.PERCENT (EACH X= 1) 14.000 1. 5 1 + X 16.000 0. 0 + 18.000 3.0 2 + XX 20.000 1.5 1 +x 22.000 1. 5 1 + x 24.000 1. 5 1 +x 26.000 0. 0 + 28.000 3.0 2 + XX 30.000 3.0 2 + XX 32.000 3.0 2 + XX 34.000 3.0 2 + XX 36.000 0. 0 + 38.000 7. 5 5 +XXXXX 40.000 3.0 2 + XX 42.000 3.0 2 + XX 44.000 0. 0 + 46.000 4. 5 3 + XXX 48.000 4. 5 3 + XXX 50.000 3.0 2 + XX 52.000 1.5 1 +x 54.000 4. 5 3 + XXX 56.000 1.5 1 +x 58.000 3.0 2 + XX 60.000 1.5 1 + x 62.000 4. 5 3 + XXX 64.000 0. 0 + 66.000 7.5 5 +XXXXX 68.000 3.0 2 + XX 70.000 3. 0 2 + XX 72.000 1. 5 1 74.000 1.5 1 +x 76.000 6. 0 4 + XXXX 78.000 3.0 2 + XX 80.000 3.0 2 + XX 82.000 1.5 1 + x 84.000 3.0 2 + XX 86,000 0. 0 + 88.000 0. 0 + 90.000 3.0 2 + XX 92.000 0. 0 + 94.000 1.5 1 +x TOTAL 67 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 2.0000) V D w H It. t C M • O ra • * H S E s H « C W 0 3 E H A CN V S E P S O O E H H 3 3 O i II O 0 4 x o . • P J w o . u « - o «: « w n m E C P-i E H P E H O O 5 5 X H K pq x X X £S C O P 5 X X X X M W H X X X X X « * » Cu X X X X X X S=» H X X X X X X P S in x x x x x x x w « X X X X X X X E-iO P 3 X X X X X X X X B (i, O X X X X X X X X H IJH x i x x x x x x x x cn + + + + + + + + + + + w E H « P t - T- V- V D U O C/l u E H S 3 6 « m i n c r i a a i a - d - s i n w E H . . . . . . . . . . . U in o r - r- r- cn r- o vo V D o « H r - 1 - r - T - r - r - W V D E H S 5 O O O O O O O O O O H H O O O O O O O O O O • J P S O O O O O O O O O O . «33 P P J i O E H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H H * - C N m : * m v D r ^ C O C r t r - E H ^ H 5 3 7 3 F I G U R E 7 P E R C E N T S C O R E S F O R T H E G R O U P " I N S T A N T " B . O . P . P . M I D P O I N T H I S T * C O U N T F O R 5 . P E R C E N T ( E A C H X = 1) 1 0 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + X X 1 2 . 0 0 0 6 . 2 4 + X X X X 1 4 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 1 6 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 1 8 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + X X 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 2 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 2 4 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 6 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 2 8 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + X X X 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 3 2 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + X X X 3 4 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + X X X 3 6 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 3 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 4 0 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 4 2 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 4 4 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + X X X 4 6 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 4 8 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 5 0 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + X X X 5 2 . 0 0 0 6 . 2 4 + X X X X 5 4 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + X X X 5 6 . 0 0 0 6 . 2 4 + X X X X 5 8 . 0 0 0 6 . 2 4 + X X X X 6 0 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + X X 6 2 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 6 4 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + X X 6 6 . 0 0 0 9 . 2 6 + X X X X X X 6 8 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + X X 7 0 . 0 0 0 4 . 6 3 + X X X 7 2 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 7 4 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 7 6 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 +x 7 8 . 0 0 0 3 . 1 2 + X X 8 0 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x 8 2 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 8 4 . 0 0 0 1. 5 1 + x 8 6 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 + 8 8 . 0 0 0 1 . 5 1 + x T O T A L 6 5 ( I N T E R V A L W I D T H = 2 . 0 0 0 0 ) 74 FIGURE 7 HISTOGRAM <3> TREATMENT:"INSTANT" B.O.P.P. MIDPOINT HIST* COUNT FOR 5.PERCENT (EACH X= 1) 0. 0. 0 + 10.000 9. 2 6 +XXXXXX 20.000 4. 6 3 + XXX 30.000 13. 8 9 +XXXXXXXXX 40.000 9. 2 6 +XXXXXX 50.000 15. 4 10 +XXXXXXXXXX 60.000 18. 5 12 +XXXXXXXXXXXX 70.000 20. 0 13 +XXXXXXXXXXXXX 80.000 7. 7 5 +XXXXX 90.000 1. 5 1 +x 100.00 0. 0 + TOTAL FIGURE 7 65 (INTERVAL WIDTH = 10.000) PERCENT SCORES FOR THE GROUP "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. 7 5 FIGURE 8 SCATTERGRAM OF CLOZE PROCEDDRE PERCENT SCORES AND STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES o o o o o a o o o a » o o o o o o UJ t • —» 1 O O O 1 -j CO tl\ 1 i I * v • O UN 1 1 a 1 X . l n r> 1 rt. O 1 »5 1 CO H a 1 Of o 1 UJ O * l et 5*»* a « UL a UJ »— t ) •< x o ai O ac O t —. CJ — lA O ^ u. uu a •m T T o z < O o o o a * O o o o o • • • • • t * r-i UJ tA •# u. T < —J * — i j •A u. " . o o o a o o o o o 7 6 FIGURE 9 SCATTERGRAH OF B.O.P.P. PERCENT SCORES AND STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES o o o o o o o •O O vn co + 7 7 FIGURE 10 SCATTERGRAM OF "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. PERCENT SCORES AND STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES o o • o a o or rt • a ! o. ! n o [ • m i m t • i -0 i m i • • I • 2T o o i _* i • X. • i O CO i i i o* a- o • °i m T» oc o i • «•> Ui O N i U- • • tx < 7 o n Q « f\j i u. i y </» i M> a i t/l UJ »- z i h- < * o i UJ O o i u at O * i M O w <M 1 • I o i • —* O o o O o rj * o AJ m rt * <•» • • • • • at «* CO co m ao o >u m -# -r u_ * UJ «* -J * N» — t.» • /I OS • > 7 0 FIGURE 11 PREDICTED REGRESSION LINES FOR GROUPS CLOZE PROCEDURE, B.O.P.P. AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. 79 CHAPTER IV ANALYSTS OF DATA, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY. Research_Questions 1. W i l l the c l o z e procedure, the Beginning of the Page Procedure and the " i n s t a n t " Beginning of 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 D i a g n o s t i c ? 2. Are the scores y i e l d e d by the c l o z e procedure, the Beginning of the Page Procedure and the " 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 estimate of r e a d a b i l i t y f o r the passage and the S t a n f o r d 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 percent on the c l o z e procedure? 4. Is there a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the performance l e v e l s of males and females on the St a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c , the c l o z e procedure, the 80 B.O.P.P. or the "instant" B.O.P.P.? Tests of Research Questions The answer to question one was found to be posit i v e f o r a l l three groups. When the percent scores on the cloze procedure the B.O.P.P. and the "instant" B.O.P.P. were correlated with the raw scores on the Stanford Diagnostic^ respective correlations of .54, .53, and .67 were found. (Table X) The answer to guestion two was found to be f a l s e . A score of 40 percent on the cloze procedure was found to be approximately equivalent to 50 percent on the B.O.P.P. and 45 percent on the "instant" B.O.P.P. (Table VIII) In answer to guestion three, a difference was found between the two estimates of r e a d a b i l i t y . The Fry Readability Graph estimated the passage to be at the grade 7.5 l e v e l . The grade score on the Stanford Diagnostic , estimated to be eguivalent to 40 percent on the cloze procedure, was found to be 10.1 (when comparisons were made with raw scores which were then converted to grade eguivalents). Grade eguivalents f o r the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. were found to be 10.1 and 10.1 respectively. No difference could be expected between these scores as the grade score eguivalents for the B.O.P.P. and "instant" 8 1 B.O.P.P. scores were obtained through a comparison with cloze procedure scores. (Figure XI, Table XIII) The answer to question four* was found to be negative* (Tables VI - VII) 82 TABLE I MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC SCORES FOR GROUPS CLOZE 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 II MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC SCORES FOR MALE AND FEMALE POPULATIONS. SEX MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION MALE 39.30 10. 18 FEMALE 38.77 10.11 84 TABLE III ANOVA — EFFECTS OF SEX ON STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC MEAN SCORES FOR THE TOTAL POPULATION AND GROUPS CLOZE PROCEDURE, B.O.P.P. AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. TEST MEAN SQUARE F-STATISTIC SIGNIFICANCE CLOZE .31921 PROCEDURE .31576 9554 B. 0. P.P. .40275 .36716 . 9519 "INSTANT" B.0.P.P. 25.615 .24873 6197 STANFORD 13.93 DIAGNOSTIC 13546 .7132 Significance l e v e l = .05 No s i g n i f i c a n t sex differences were found at the .05 l e v e l . TABLE IV DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY SEX GROUP MALE FEMALE TOTAL STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC 106 90 196 CLOZE PROCEDURE 35 29 64 B.O.P.P. 33 34 67 "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. 38 27 65 86 TABLE V MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR PERCENT SCORES FOR GROUPS CLOZE PROCEDURE, B.O.P.P- AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. GROUP 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 RAW SCORES r AND CLOZE PROCEDURE, B.O.P.P. AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. PERCENT SCORES TEST MALE FEMALE MARGINAL MEAN STANFORD 39.30 38.77 39-06 DIAGNOSTIC 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 88 TABLE VII SUMMARY OF ANOVA EFFECTS OF SEX ON STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES, ANE CLOZE PROCEDURE , B.O.P.P. AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. PERCENT SCORES . TEST MEAN SQUARES FrSTATISTIC SIGNIFICANCE STANFORD 13.94 .13546 .7132 DIAGNOSTIC CLOZE 59.319 .34755 .5576 PROCEDURE B.O.P.P. 637.01 1.5341 .2199 "INSTANT" 219.61 .51825 .4743 B.O.P.P. Significance l e v e l = .05 No s i g n i f i c a n t sex differences were found at the .05 l e v e l . 89 TABLE VIII ESTIMATED INSTRUCTIONAL RANGE EQUIVALENCIES FOR GROUPS CLOZE PROCEDURE, E.O.P.P. AND "INSTANT" B.O.P.P. GROUP LOWER LIMIT UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT GRADE EQUIVALENT 10.1% 10. 1% 10.1% CLOZE PROCEDURE 40% 59% B.O.P.P. 50% 80% "INSTANT" 45% 68% B.0.P.P. 90 TABLE IX ESTIMATED EQUIVALENCY TABLE FOR CLOZE PROCEDURE, B. 0. P. P. AND "INSTANT" B .O.P.P. SCORES AS PREDICTED FROM STANFORD DIAGNOSTIC RAW SCORES. STANFORD STANFORD CLOZE B.O.P.Pi "INSTANT" DIAGNOSTIC DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE PERCENT B.O.P.P. RAW SCORE GRADE SCORE PERCENT SCORE PERCENT 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 CLOZE B.O.P.P. "INSTANT DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE B.O.P.P. STANFORD 1.00 .5413 .5341 .6703 DIAGNOSTIC TABLE XI SIGNIFICANCE OF CORRELATIONS OF ALL VARIABLES VARIABLE STANFORD CLOZE B.O.P.P. "INSTANT" DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE B.O.P.P. STANFORD .00 .00 .00 .00 DIAGNOSTIC Significance l e v e l = .05 A l l correlations are highly s i g n i f i c a n t . T A B L E X I I G R A D E E Q U I V A L E N T S C O R R E S P O N D I N G TO S T A N F O R D D I A G N O S T I C RAW S C O R E S TEST 1 Reading Comprehension Total Raw Grade Raw Grade Score Equivalent Score Equivalent 60 GRAD 30 8.3 59 GRAD 29 8.1 58 GRAD 28 7.8 57 GRAD 27 7.6 56 GRAD 26 7.4 55 GRAD 25 7.1 54 GRAD 24 6.9 53 GRAD 23 6.6 52 GRAD 22 6.4 51 GRAD 21 6.1 50 GRAD 20 5.8 49 GRAD 19 5.4 48 GRAD 18 5.1 47 GRAD 17 4.7 46 12.7 16 4.4 45 12.1 15 4.1 44 11.7 14 3.8 43 11.3 13 3.5 42 11.0 . 12 3.3 41 10.7 11 3.1 40 10.5 10 3.0 39 10.3 9 2.8 38 10.1 8 2.7 37 9.9 7 2.6 36 9.7 6 2.4 35 9.5 5 2.3 34 9.3, 4 2.2 33 9.0 3 2.1 32 8.8 2 1.9 31 8.6 1 1.8 94 Summary This research indicated the cloze procedure, the B.O.P.P. and the "instan t " B.O.P.P. were a l l s t a t i s t i c a l l y p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the Stanford Diagnostic which was used as the anchor t e s t . Of the three t e s t s , the "instant" B.O.P.P. was found to be the most highly correlated with the Stanford Diagnostic. Although the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. yielded considerably higher percentage scores than the cloze procedure, the high c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l test scores with the anchor test seemed to indicate that many of the s k i l l s required to complete the cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. were also the s k i l l s required to complete the Stanford Diagnostic* The higher scores on the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. indicated that students found these to be easier tasks; l i k e l y due to the large number of p a r t i a l words which provided clues to the t o t a l word. However, the high correlation of both the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. to the Stanford_piagnqstic suggested that both were v a l i d measures for assessing r e a d a b i l i t y . When comparing the r e a d a b i l i t y l e v e l of the given passage as estimated by the Fry Readability Graph and the r e a d a b i l i t y of the same passage as estimated by the Stanford Diagnostic grade score eguivalent to 40 percent on the cloze procedure, i t appeared at f i r s t glance that 95 the r e a d a b i l i t y estimates were quite d i f f e r e n t . However, th i s study contended that when the necessary adjustments were made to the r e a d a b i l i t y scores, both estimates of r e a d a b i l i t y were v i r t u a l l y the same. This argument was based on the fact that the Fry Readability Graph was formulated using the 50 to 75 percent c r i t e r i o n on the McCall Crabbs Test Lessons , t h i s being the f r u s t r a t i o n to i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l ; The cloze procedure, on the other hand, was validated against the McCall Crabbs Test Lessons using the 75 to 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 to independent l e v e l ; Burmeister (1974) stated that the difference between a student's f r u s t r a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l s was estimated to be one to two years. It was f e l t that t h i s one to two years must be added to the Fry Readability score before i t could be compared to a cloze procedure score. Further, s i l e n t reading tests such as the Stanford Diagnostic , were known to i n f l a t e the grade scores to the point where the grade scores yielded were usually i n d i c a t i v e of the student's f r u s t r a t i o n l e v e l (Burmeister 1974). Burmeister suggested that we must drop back a year or more to f i n d the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l ; The si t u a t i o n then existed where one to two years were to be added to the Fry score to indicate the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l of the passage and one to two years were to be subtracted from the Stanford Diagnostic grade 96 score equivalent to 40 percent on the cloze procedure (this study has settled on an adjustment score of 1 1/2 years). When these c a l c u l a t i o n s were complete i t was found that the Fry Graph indicated the passage to be 7.5 + 1.5 = 9-0 while the Stanford Diagnostic equivalent of the 40 percent cloze procedure estimated the passage to be 10.1 - 1.5 = 8.6 and thus both gave r e l a t i v e l y equivalent 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 difference found between male and female achievement on the Stanford Diagnostic r e s u l t s for the entire population, the Stanford Diagnostic results for any of the three groups, cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. or for the percent scores for these same three groups. Discussion The r e s u l t s of t h i s study indicated that the B.O.P.P. and the "instant" B.O.P.P. were appropriate r e a d a b i l i t y measures: The study also showed that when the necessary calculations had been made to both the Fry re a d a b i l i t y score and the Stanfgrd^Diagnostic grade score equivalent to 40 percent, then both measures estimated the re a d a b i l i t y l e v e l of the passage to be r e l a t i v e l y the same. The study, however, was limited i n 97 that only one passage was tested. Several problems were experienced in using the Stanford.Diagnostic which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between scores at the lower end of the scale much more e f f i c i e n t l y than between those at the top end of the scale. Grade eguivalents were given only to the end of grade twelve and a l l higher scores were designated as "grad". Unfortunately , 28 percent of the population f e l l within t h i s category. In the f i r s t attempts to analyse the data a l l calculations were made using grade scores and anyone scoring above the grade 12.9 l e v e l was a r b i t r a r i l y assigned the l e v e l 13.5 . This procedure resulted in strong c e i l i n g e f f e c t s and i t appeared advisable to recalculate the data using raw scores which would at least give a d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores at the top end, ( i f not the grade score eguivalent). A test that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d well between scores at both ends of the scale would c e r t a i n l y have been a preferable instrument, as the d i s t r i b u t i o n would have been less l i k e l y to be skewed in either d i r e c t i o n . No sex differences of any si g n i f i c a n c e were found for any of the groups but contrary to what i s usually expected, the males scored higher, although not s i g n i f i c a n t l y so, for a l l categories. 9 8 Conclusions and Implications. The co r r e l a t i o n of B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. percent scores with the raw score on the Stanford Diagnostic was shown to be s i m i l a r to, or higher, than the correlation of the cloze procedure to the Stanford Diagnostic* The cloze procedure had long been recognized as a v a l i d measure of r e a d a b i l i t y (Review of the Literature, Chapter 2) and the results of t h i s study indicated that the B.O.P*P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. were also v a l i d measures of readability* It i s true that the percent scores on both these tests tended to be higher than those for the cloze procedure. This was very l i k e l y the resu l t of the clues offered by the many p a r t i a l words, but rather than being a c r i t i c i s m of the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P., Boyce (1974), considering a sim i l a r s i t u a t i o n , suggested that i t gave the student a l l the contextual clues available in regular reading* The B*O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. hold great promise; they have the advantage of the cloze procedure in that they measure the student's a b i l i t y to deal d i r e c t l y with the material at hand but the time reguired to prepare and administer these tests, p a r t i c u l a r l y the "instant" B.O.P.P., i s considerably l e s s than that reguired for the cloze procedure. This decrease i n time i s very important as i t increases the l i k e l i h o o d that 9 9 such a measure w i l l be used by the pra c t i t i o n e r . These conclusions, however, are based on studies involving only one passage and generalizations made from such a study must be questioned. Certainly the percentage scores establishing the i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l f or both the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. should not be generalized to other materials without further v a l i d a t i o n . For the passage studied* the Fry Graph and Stanford Diagnostic grade score equivalent to UO percent on the cloze procedure, appeared to y i e l d almost the same re a d a b i l i t y scores once previously mentioned adjustments were made. Once again the study was not broad enough i n scope to allow th i s information to be generalized to other passages. Recommendations, for Future;Study 1. Since the study showed promising c o r r e l a t i o n between the Stanford Diagnostic and both the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P., the study should be repl i c a t e d using a variety of passages and further, several d i f f e r e n t grade levels should be involved i n the new study. 1 0 0 2 . Various cloze procedure forms for each passage selected should be sampled i n order to ensure that the passage chosen i s representative . 3 . The s t r i p of paper used to make the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. should be placed in the middle of the page and at the ri g h t hand side of the page. The r e s u l t i n g passages could then be administered to a sample population to ensure that the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. are no more or les s d i f f i c u l t than tests created by using middle or end of the page deletions. 4 . Since the Stanford;Diagnostic does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e well between scores at the top end of the scale and since a large percentage of scores f e l l within t h i s range i t i s recommended that a new anchor test be employed. 5 . More research i s reguired to determine i f the Fry rea d a b i l i t y score plus 1 .5 years i s egual to the grade score on a new anchor test minus 1 . 5 years. This would have to be established over several passages and with several standardized tests 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 comprehension i n reading. I. D. Bracken and E i Malmguist (eds), Improving reading a b i l i t y around the world.. Proceedings of the International Reading Association , 1971, 115 - 121. Anderson, J. A technique for measuring reading comprehension and r e a d a b i l i t y ; English Language Teaching, 1971, 25 , 178 - 182. Asher, S. R. and others. Children'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 cloze scoring methods, technical report No. U^j. 1976 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 134939) (Abstract) 102 B e i l , D. The emperor's new cloze. Journal of Reading, 1977, 2 0 x 7, 601 - 604. Betts, E. A. Foundations of reading i n s t r u c t i o n . New York: American Book Company, 1954. Bormuth, J . R. Cloze as a measure of r e a d a b i l i t y ; IRA Conference Proceedings, 1963, 8 , 131 - 134. Bormuth, J. R. Experimental applications of cloze t e s t s . International Reading_Association Conference,. 1964, 9 , 303 - 306. Bormuth, j . R. Comparisons among cloze t e s t scoring methods; Proceedings o f . t h e l n t e r n a t i o n a l Reading Association, 196 5, JO , 283 - 2 86. 103 Bormuth, J. R. Readability: a new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 1966, 1 , 79 - 132. Bormuth, J. R. Comparable cloze and multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Journal of Reading, 1967, 10 , 5 , 291 - 299. Bormuth, J. R. Cloze test reference scores. Measurement, 1968, 5 , 3 r e a d a b i l i t y : c r i t e r i o n Journal of Educational 189 -, 196. Bormuth, J. R. The cloze r e a d a b i l i t y procedure, Elementary English, 196 8b , 45 , 4 29 - 436. Bormuth, J. R. Cloze tests and reading comprehension. Reading, Research Quarterly, 1969, 4 , 358 - 365. 104 Bormuth, J. R. Development of re a d a b i l i t y analysis, f i n a l Report. University of Chicago* 1969b . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 029 166) Bortnick, R., S Lopardo, G. A Case for cloze in the classroom. 1974. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 094327) Bortnick, R., & Lopardo, G. The cloze procedure: a multi-purpose classroom t o o l . Reading Improvement, 1976, J3 , 113 - 117. Boyce, M. w. Some d i f f i c u l t i e s in using cloze procedures to assess r e a d a b i l i t y . 1974. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 110921) Boyce, M. W. Some comment on the use of the cloze for classroom mathematics materials. School Science and Mathematics^ 1978, 7 8 , 1, 9 - 1 2 . 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 s c h o o l t e a c h e r s . Menlo P a r k , C a l i f o r n i a : Addison - Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1974. C a r v e r , P.. P. Measuring t h e p r i m a r y e f f e c t o f r e a d i n g : r e a d i n g s t o r a g e t e c h n i g u e * u n d e r s t a n d i n g judgements, and c l o z e . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l . B e h a v i o u r , 1974, 6 , 249 - 256. Cohen* J . H. The e f f e c t o f c o n t e n t a r e a m a t e r i a l on c l o z e t e s t performance* J o u r n a l o f , R e a d i n g , 1976, 12 f 247. Culh a n e , F. G. C l o z e p r o c e d u r e and comprehension. l e a d i n g _ T e a c h e r , Feb. 1970, 23 , 410 - 413. Cunningham, J . W., S l i m i t e d - c l o z e B e h a v i o u r , 1978, Cunningham, P. M. V a l i d a t i n g a procedure* J o u r n a l o f Reading 10 , 211 - 213. 106 Daines, D., 6 Mason, L. A comparison of placement t e s t r e a d a b i l i t y graphs. journal of Reading , 1972, 1.5 , 597. Dale, E., 5 C h a l l , J. S. A Formula for predicting r e a d a b i l i t y . Educational Research:Bulletin , 19 48, 48 , 11 - 20 and 28. Dishner, E. K. The cloze procedure: a valuable tool for content teachers. 1973 (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 123602) Entin, E. B., 5 Klare, G. R. Some i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of readability* cloze and multiple-choice scores on a reading comprehension test. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 1978, ±0 , 4 , 417 - 434. F a r r i s , I. S. A comparison of cloze and multiple-choice procedures for measuring reading comprehension; 1975. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. Document ED 120666) (Abstract) 107 Fry, E. B. A r e a d a b i l i t y formula that saves time. Journal,of Reading, A p r i l 1968, 2.1 , 5 1 3 - 5 1 6 , 575 - 578. Fry, E. B. Fry's r e a d a b i l i t y graph: c l a r i f i c a t i o n s , v a l i d i t y and extension to l e v e l 17, Journal of l e a d i n g Dec. 1979, 21 , 3 , 242 - 252. Galloway, P. How secondary students and teachers read textbooks* Journal of Reading , 1973, J7 , 216. Hafner, L. E. Relationships of various measures to the "cloze". National ReadingConferehce , 1964, J 3 , 137 - 145. Hafner, L. E. Implications of cloze. Nationa1_Reading Conference , 196 5, J.4 , 151 - 158. 108 Hansell, T. S. Readability, s y n t a c t i c transformations, and generative semantics. Journal of Heading, 19 76, 19 , 557. Jefferson, G. L. J r . Lex i c a l and s t r u c t u r a l items as predictors of r e a d a b i l i t y for high and low a b i l i t y readers. Nineteenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference , 1971, 172 - 178. Jones, M. B, & P i k u l s k i , E. C. Cloze for the classroom. Journal of Reading , 1974, JT7 , 6 , 432 - 438. Jongsma, E. R. The cloze procedure: a, survey of the research. 1971. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 050893) Keonk, K. Another p r a c t i c a l note on r e a d a b i l i t y formulas. Journal „of Reading, 1971, 1.5 , 203. 1 0 9 Kirby, C. Using the cloze procedure as a test i n g technigue. A p r i l 1 9 6 8 . (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 0 1 9 2 0 2 ) Klare, G. R. The measurement of R e a d a b i l i t y ^ Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1 9 6 3 . Klare, G. R. Assessing r e a d a b i l i t y . Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y 1 9 7 5 , 1.0 , 6 2 - 1 0 0 . Klare, G. R. A second look at the v a l i d i t y of rea d a b i l i t y formulas. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 1 9 7 6 , 8 , 129 - 1 5 2 . McCabe, P. P. Give readers a B.O.P.P. Journal of Reading, Dec. 1 9 7 9 , 2 3 , 3 , 1 9 9 . 110 MacGinitie, W. H. Contextual constraint in english prose paragraphs. Journal_of Psychology, 1961, 51. . McKenna, M. Synonymic versus verbatim scoring of the cloze procedure. Journal of Reading , 1976, 20 , 2, 141 - 143. McLaughlin, G. H. Smog grading - a new r e a d a b i l i t y formula. Journal of Reading, 1969, V2 , 63 9. M i l l e r , L. R. Predictive powers of multiple-choice and cloze derived r e a d a b i l i t y formulas. Reading, Improvement , Spring 1975, 12 , 1 , 52 - 58. Myers, P. C. The cloze procedure: l a t e s t research and uses. 1976. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 123556) 1 1 1 O i l e r , J . w. J r . C l o z e ; d i s c o u r s e and approximations to E n g l i s h . 1 9 7 5 . (ERIC. Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 1 0 7 1 4 4 ) (Abstract) Panackal, A. A., 5 Heft, C. S. Cloze technique and m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e technigue: r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 1 9 7 8 , 3 8 , 4 , 9 1 7 - 9 3 2 . Pauk, W. A p r a c t i c a l note on r e a d a b i l i t y formulas. J o u r n a l of Reading, 1 9 6 9 , J I 3 , 2 0 7 . Pennock, C. D. S e l e c t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s . A l b e r t a .Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 1 9 7 3 , J. 9 , 1 , 3 0 - 3 6 . Pennock, C. D. r e a d a b i l i t y . 3 9 . The c l o z e t e s t f o r a s s e s s i n g l M i i s k _ £ a a £ t e r r y A 1 9 7 3 , 5 , 4 , 3 5 - 112 Peterson, J. and others. Validation of the cloze procedure as a measure of r e a d a b i l i t y with high school, trade school and college populations. 1972. {ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 058000) Pollock, D. H. The use of cloze to determine reading i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l s . (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 099792) (Abstract) Potter, T. C. A taxonomy of cloze research part I: re a d a b i l i t y and reading comprehension* 19 6 8. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 022644) (Abstract) Rakes, T. A., & McWilliams, I. Bridging the alternatives to standardized testing* Journal, Oct. 1978, 67 , 7 , 4 6 - 50. gap: two English 113 Rankin, E. F* J r . The cloze procedure - i t s v a l i d i t y and u t i l i t y . Eighth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 19 59, 8 ; 1 3 1 - 1 4 4. Rankin, E. F. J r . The cloze procedure - a survey of research. National Reading Conference, 196 5, J.4 . Rankin> E. F. Grade l e v e l interpretations of cloze r e a d a b i l i t y scores. Dec. 1970* (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No* ED 046657) Rankin, E. F., S Culhane, J. W. Comparable cloze and multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Journal of_ReadiMx. 1969, .13 , 3 , 193 - 198. R i l e y , P. M. The cloze procedure — a selected annotated bibliography. 1973. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No* ED 106749) ( 11 4 Rosenkranz, C. I. R. The e f f i c i e n c y of cloze procedure for estimating reading a b i l i t y of students and re a d a b i l i t y of materials i n adult fundamental educational_programs. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 119127) (Abstract) Ruddell, R. B. A study of the cloze comprehension technigue i n rel a t i o n to s t r u c t u r a l l y controlled reading material. International Reading Association Conference, 1964, 9 298 - 303. Rupley, W. H. The cloze procedure. Journal of Reading, 1973, T6 , 6 , 496 - 497. Russell, S. N. How e f f e c t i v e i s the cloze technigue i n the measurement of reading comprehension? Viewpoints i n Teaching and Learning, 1978, 54 , 3 , 90 - 95. 115 Schneyer, J. W. Use of the cloze procedure for improving reading comprehension. Reading Teacher. 1965, J 9 , 174 - 179. Schoelles, I. S. Cloze as a predictor of reading group placement. A p r i l , 1971. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 053868) Smith, N., 5 Zink, A. A cloze-based investigation of reading comprehension as a composite of s u b s k i l l s . Journal of Reading Behaviour, 1977, 9 , 4 , 3 9 5 - 398. Spooncer, F. Hanging out the cloze l i n e . Onited Kingdom Reading Association^ June 1974, 8 , 19 - 26. Taylor, W. R. "Cloze procedure": a new t o o l f o r measuring r e a d a b i l i t y . Journalism Quarterly , 19 53, 30 , 415 - 433. 116 Taylor, W. L. Recent developments in the use of "cloze procedure". Journalism Quarterly , 1956, 33 , 42 - 48. Taylor, W. L. "Cloze" r e a d a b i l i t y scores as indices of indi v i d u a l differences in comprehension and aptitude. Journal of Applied Psychology^ 1957, 41_ , 1 , 19 - 26. Thelen, J. N. Using the cloze test with science textbooks; Science and Children, 1974, V2 , 3 , 26 - 27. Thorndike, E. L. Reading and reasoning: a study of mistakes in paragraph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1917, 8 , 323 - 332. Tinzmann, M. B., & Thomas, G. R. A comparison of l i s t e n i n g and reading cloze procedures and a standardized reading achievement .test; Hay, 1977. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No; ED 162249) 117 Tuinman* J . f 6 Blantcn, G. A note on cloze as a measure of comprehension* Journal of Psychology, 1975, 90 , 159 - 162. Van Rooy, L. Readability_studies and the writer of i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials. 1973. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 089245) Vaughan, J. L. J r . Interpreting r e a d a b i l i t y assessments. Journal of.Readinq, 1976, 1.9 , 635. Walter, R. B. H i s t o r i c a l overview of the cloze procedure. 1974. (ERIC. Document Reproduction Service No. ED 094337) Weaver, W. W., 5 Kingston, A. J. A factor analysis of the cloze procedure and other measures of reading and language a b i l i t y . Journal of Communication, Dec. 1963 , 1 3 , 252 - 26X. 118 Weaver, G. C. Osing the cloze procedure as a teaching technigue. Reading Teacher* 1979, 3 2 , 5 , 6 32 636. Weaver, W. W. Theoretical aspects of the cloze procedure. National Reading Conference , 1964, J.3 , 115 - 132. 119 Appendix A Corrected Lorge Formula Compute average sentence length i n words (X2) ; Compute number of prepositional phrases per 100 words (X3) ; Count number of different hard words not on the Dale 769 word l i s t (X4) ; Substitute in the formula: X1(grade placement) = .06X2 + .10X3 + .10X4 + 1.99 X1 stands for the average reading a b i l i t y required to co r r e c t l y answer one-half of the test questions on a given passage. (Klare, 1963) 120 Appendix B Flesch Corrected Formula The Flesch formula, unlike the Lorge, was not designed to give a reading grade l e v e l but rather to indicate a l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y based on seven classes, 1 being the easiest and 7 being the most d i f f i c u l t . Systematically select samples of 100 words throughout the material to be rated: Compute average sentence length in words (Xs) ; Count the number of a f f i x e s (Xm) ; Count the number of personal references (Xh); Average the results and insert in the formula: .07Xm + -07Xs - .05Xh + 3.27 (Klare 1963) Flesch stipulated that the users of his formula were to count as sentences each unit of thought that was gramatically independent of another sentence or clause, i f i t ended with a period, guestion mark; exclamation point, semicolon or colon. Sentence fragments were also to be counted as sentences. 121 Appendix C Flesch Reading Ease Formula Systematically select 100-word samples from material to be rated; Determine the number of s y l l a b l e s per 100 words (WI) ; Determine the average number of words per sentence (SL) ; Apply i n the following reading ease eguation: R.E. = 206.835 - .846WL - 1.01SL (Klare 1963) Refer to charts for l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y and approximate grade equivalent. A p p e n d i x C S Y L L A B L E S P E R 100 W O R D S 1 2 0 " f 120 H O W 1 0 US I THIS CH A H T I *Ku <i (>«<» i l o i (ulci ami COII- noci youi "Word* p«f Sentence" liguie (loll) with youi "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" ico io. R E A D I N G E A S E S C O R E W O R D S P E R S E N T E N C E 1 0 - 15 • 2 0 - 2 5 - 3 0 - 3 5 - - 1 0 - 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 5 - 3 0 - 3 5 V e r y Easy Easy F a i r l y Easy Standard F a i r l y D i f f i c u l t D i f f i c u l t S V e r y D i f f i c u l t 1 0 0 - — 1 0 0 - 95-E - 9 5 90-E - 9 0 - \ 85-E E- 8 5 > 80-E - 8 0 - < 75 -E 75 > 70 -E — - 7 0 - 6 5 - f 6 5 i 6 0 ~E 6 0 i 55-E 5 5 - 50 -EE 5 0 - 4 5 - £ 4 5 40-E 4 0 35-E 3 5 30-E 3 0 - 25-E 2 5 20-E 2 0 15 -E 15 io-E 10 5-E 5 : • V e r y Easy - Easy F a i r l y Easy • Standard F a i r l y D i f f i c u l t > D i f f i c u l t D i f f i c u l t 125 130 135 • 140 1 4 5 - 4 150 - 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 190 195 2 0 0 © 1049 by Rudolf 125 130 135 140 - 145 - 150 - 155 - 160 - 165 - 170 - 175 - 180 - 185 - 190 - 195 - 2 0 0 Reading-ease score Description of style Typical magazine Grade 90 to 100 80 to 90 70 to 80 60 to 70 50 to 60 30 to 50 Oto 30 Very easy Easy Fairly easy Standard Fairly difficult Difficult Comics Pulp liction Slick fiction Digests, Time, Mass nonaction Harper's, Atlantic Academic, scholarly 5 6 7 8 and 9 10-12 (high school) 13-16 (college) College graduate Very Scientific, difficult professional F T e s c h , R . T h e a r t o f r e a d a b T e ~ w r i t i n g . New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row P u b l i s h i n g - C o . , 1 9 4 9 , p . 5 . F l e s c h , R. How t o t e s t r e a d a b i l i t y . New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1 9 5 1 , p p . 6 , 4 3 . 123 Appendix D Dale-chall Formula Select 100-word samples throughout the material to be rated; (about every tenth page f o r books* every 2000 words for a r t i c l e s ) Compute the average sentence length in words (X2); Compute the percentage of words outside the Dale l i s t of 3000 (X1) ; Apply in formula: Xc50 = .1579x1 + .0496x2 + 3.6365 Where Xc50 refers to the reading grade score of a student who can answer one-half of the test questions on a passage co r r e c t l y . (Klare 1963) Dale and Chall (1948) set up the following table of estimated corrected grade l e v e l s : Appendix D 124 Formula Score Corrected Grade:level 4.9 and below Grade IV and below 5.0 to 5.9 Grades V - VI 6.0 to 6.9 Grades VII - VIII 7.0 to 7.9 Grades IX - X I.O to 8.9 Grades XI - XII 9.0 to 9 .9 Grades XIII - XV (College) 10.00 and above Grades XVI +College graduate The Dale-Chall l i s t has not been included. A p p e n d i x 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 Readability Formula SMOG grading = 3+ sguare root of polys y l l a b l e count. The polysyllable count i s the number of words, within 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 consecutive sentences near the beginning of the text to be assessed, 10 in the middle and 10 near the end. Count as a sentence any s t r i n g of words ending with a period, guestion mark or exclamation point: 2. In the 30 selected sentences count every word of three or more s y l l a b l e s . Any str i n g of l e t t e r s or numerals beginning and ending with a space or punctuation mark should be counted i f at least three s y l l a b l e s can be distinguished when i t i s read aloud in context . I f a p o l y s y l l a b i c word i s repeated, count each r e p e t i t i o n . Estimate the square ro o t of the number of p o l y s y l l a b i c words counted; T h i s i s done by t a k i n g the square r o o t of the nearest p e r f e c t square. For example, i f the count i s 95, the nearest p e r f e c t square i s 100, which y i e l d s a square ro o t of 10. I f the count l i e s roughly between two p e r f e c t sguares, choose the lower number. For i n s t a n c e , i f the count i s 110, take the sguare root of 100 r a t h e r than t h a t of 121. Add 3 to the approximate square r o o t . T h i s gives the SMOG Grade* which i s the read i n g grade t h a t a person must have reached i f he i s t o understand f u l l y the t e x t assessed; 1 2 8 Appendix G THE GOOD OLD DAYS? Have you ever been told, "Now you're going to catch 1t! Just wait t i l l your gets home," or "Wait your mother finds out"? you had lived in times, you might have even more apprehensive If had been told, "Wait Lecture Day!" Colonial punishment misconduct could be quite . To be embarrassed and by the whole town one of the agonizing endured by many. On Day, a l l the community aside i ts work, packed and went to the square. There, a preacher deliver a lengthy lecture - dramatic fire-and-brimstone on the consequences of behavior. It was designed put fear of misbehavior l isteners' hearts. Everyone listened ; but i t was the that the villagers awaited. the speech was f inal ly , a l l those convicted of were paraded to a in front of the . They were forced to their guilt and publicly . Then they were whipped. real criminals - those who murdered or robbed large - were hanged, as were accused of witchcraft. Others - thieves, for instance - were . The rest were locked the stocks or pi l lory. were those accused of beating, cursing, nagging, drunkenness, to observe the Sabbath, talking back to parents. stocks were a wooden which restrained a seated by fastening hands and in locked frames. The restrained a person's head ' hands. The punishment was to be psychological, but passersby added physical torment pelting prisoners with stones. The idea of public ridicule was a terrible one, and was effective 1n keeping most people within the binding rules. I 1 2 9 t i l l y o u r f a 1 i t s h o m e , " o r " W a i t t i l l y o u r m o t h e r f i n d s o u t " ? I f y o u 1 . h a d l i v e d i n 2 a l t i m e s , y o u m i g h t h a v e b e e n e v e n m o r e a p p r e h e n s i v e i f y o u 2 . h a d b e e n t o ! 3 t u n t i l L e c t u r e D a y ! " - 3 . C o l o n i a 4 h m e n t f o r m i s c o n d u c t c o u l d b e q u i t e s e v e r e . T o be 4 ' - e m b a r r a s s e d . 5 g r a c e d b y t h e w h o l e t o w n w a s o n e o f t h e a g o n i z i n g p u n i s h m e n t s 5 * - e n d u r e d b y m. 6 6 ' - O n L e c t i 7 a l l t h e c o m m u n i t y p u t a s i d e i t s w o r k , p a c k e d l u n c h e s a n d 1'- w e n t t o t h e 8 l u a r e . T h e r e , a p r e a c h e r w o u l d d e l i v e r a l e n g t h y l e c t u r e - a 8 . d r a m a t i c f i n 9 > r i m s t o n e s e r m o n o n t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f b a d b e h a v i o r . I t w a s 9 . d e s i g n e d t o 1 0 t r o f m i s b e h a v i o r i n t o l i s t e n e r s ' h e a r t s . E v e r y o n e l i s t e n e d 1 0 . q u i e t l y ; b u t 11 ; t h e f o l l o w - u p t h a t t h e v i l l a g e r s a w a i t e d . 1 1 . W h e n t h 12 : h w a s f i n a l l y o v e r , a l l t h o s e c o n v i c t e d o f c r i m e s w e r e 1 2 . p a r a d e d t o a 1 3 >rm i n f r o n t o f t h e p e o p l e . T h e y w e r e f o r c e d t o a d m i t t h e i r 1 3 . g u i l t a n d p u 14 a p o l o g i z e . T h e n t h e r e w e r e w h i p p e d . 1 4 . T h e r e a 1 5 i n a l s - t h o s e w h o h a d m u r d e r e d o r r o b b e d l a r g e a m o u n t s - w e r e 1 5 . h a n g e d , a s w 16 >se a c c u s e d o f w i t c h c r a f t . O t h e r s - c o m m o n t h i e v e s , f o r 1 6 . i n s t a n c e - w 1 7 > r i s o n e d . T h e r e s t w e r e l o c k e d i n t h e s t o c k s o r p i l l o r y . T h e y 1 7 . w e r e t h o s e a 1 8 o f w i f e b e a t i n g , c u r s i n g , n a g g i n g , d r u n k e n n e s s , f a i l u r e t o 1 8 . o b s e r v e t h e 1 9 i , o r t a l k i n g b a c k t o p a r e n t s . 1 9 . T h e s t o 2 0 - e a w o o d e n s t r u c t u r e w h i c h r e s t r a i n e d a s e a t e d p r i s o n e r b y 2 0 . f a s t e n i n g h a 2 1 i f e e t i n l o c k e d f r a m e s . T h e p i l l o r y r e s t r a i n e d a p e r s o n ' s 2 1 . h e a d a n d h a n 2 2 i e p u n i s h m e n t w a s m e a n t t o b e p s y c h o l o g i c a l , b u t o f t e n p a s s e r s b y 2 2 . a d d e d p h y s i c 2 3 l e n t b y p e l t i n g p r i s o n e r s w i t h s t o n e s . 2 3 . T h e i d e a o f p u b l i c r i d i c u l e w a s a t e r r i b l e o n e , a n d w a s e f f e c t i v e i k e e p i n g m o s t p e o p l e w i t h i n t h e b i n d i n g r u l e s . I p-e 130 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. 2 . mes, you might have been even more apprehensive if you had been 3. Wait until Lecture Day!" C o l o n i a l p 4. embar ra s sed ai 5 p u n i s h m e n t s er 6. 7. 8. On Lectur lunches and w« lengthy lectun $ t quences of bad 10. listeners' heart \ \„ the villagers av 12. ient for misconduct could be quite severe. To be raced by the whole town was one of the agonizing by many. all the community put aside its work, packed he town square. There, a preacher would deliver a amatic fire-and-brimstone sermon on the conse- or. It was designed to put fear of misbehavior into yone listened quietly; but it was the follow-up that 1. _ 2. _ 3/ 4._ 5. 6 . " 7. _ 8. _ 9. _ 10. _ 11. _ 12. When the 13 paraded to a p 14, their guilt and 15, The real 16. amounts —wer 17. —common thie 18. in the stocks 019. ing, nagging, 20. back to parent* was finally over, all those convicted of crimes were in front of the people. They were forced to admit apologize. Then they were whipped. 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, curs- iness, failure to observe the Sabbath, or talking 13, 14. 15. 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 2 1 •. hands and feet in locked frames. The pillory 2 2 •- lead and hands. The punishment was meant to be 2 3 •- en passersby added physical torment by pelting 2 4 • 25." The idea of public ridicule was a terrible one, and was effective I keeping most people within the binding rules.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 23 7
Japan 7 0
United States 5 0
France 3 0
Indonesia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 23 2
Tokyo 7 0
Unknown 4 1
Lithonia 2 0
Gering 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items