Cloze item types and second language comprehension

Abstract

This paper describes the further analysis of one portion of the data reported in Jonz (1989). Four 50-item fixed-ratio cloze tests were administered to 238 nonnative university freshman. Half of the subjects were randomly assigned to take the cloze tests in their naturally occurring order; the other half of the subjects were randomly assigned to take the tests after the original sequence of the sentences in the passage had been thoroughly scrambled. Additionally, half of the subjects were allowed to read the entire correctly sequenced unaltered passage prior to completing the cloze tests. After each item on the two normal-order tests had been assigned to one of five item types according to a scheme introduced in Bachman (1985) and further developed in Jonz (1990b), the patterns of response of each of the item types on all four cloze tests were then studied. The data analysis revealed that under the prior-knowledge condition, textually cohesive cloze-test items showed a significant sensitivity to sentence scrambling. The paper concludes that (1) intersentential ties are particularly salient in the comprehension processes of nonnative speakers (cf. Jonz, 1987), and that (2) in specific respect of nonnative-speaker responses, fixed-ratio cloze tests are significantly sensitive to textual variations and continuities at levels well beyond local phrase structure. That is to say, attained scores on standard fixed-ratio cloze procedure reflect to a significant extent a nonnative-speaker examinee's utilization of text-level linguistic structures and discourse comprehension processes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alderson, J.C. 1979: The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly 13: 219-23.

Alderson, J.C. 1980: Native and non-native speaker performance on cloze tests . Language Learning 30: 59-76.

Bachman, L.F. 1985: Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions. TESOL Quarterly 19: 535-56.

Chavez-Oller, M.A. , Chihara, T. , Weaver, K.A. and Oller, J.W. , Jr. 1985: When are cloze items sensitive to constraints across sentences? Language Learning 35: 181-206.

Cziko, G. 1983: Another response to Shanahan, Kamil, and Tobin: Further reasons to keep the cloze case open. Reading Research Quarterly 18: 361-365.

Gamarra, A. and Jonz, J. 1987: Cloze procedure and the sequence of text. In Readence, J.E. and Baldwin, R.S. , editors, Research in literacy: Merging perspectives , Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Gregg, J. 1985: Communication and culture. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Grolier Society. 1956: Our common birds V: Woodpeckers, hummingbirds, swifts, whippoorwills and nighthawks. In The book of popular science (Vol. 8), New York : Author.

Guttman, L. 1945: A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika 10: 255-282.

10.

Jonz, J. 1987: Textual cohesion and second language comprehension . Language Learning 37: 409-38.

11.

Jonz, J. 1989: Textual sequence and second-language comprehension . Language Learning 39: 207-249.

12.

Jonz, J. 1990a: An intratextual analysis of cloze procedure. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 9: 91-106.

13.

Jonz, J. 1990b: Another turn in the conversation: what does cloze measure? TESOL Quarterly 24: 61-83.

14.

Oller, J.W. , Jr. 1975: Cloze, discourse and approximations to English , In Burt, M.K. and Dulay, H., editors, New directions in second language teaching and bilingual education: On TESOL '75, Washington, D.C.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

15.

Rankin, E.F. 1981, December: The content and construct validity of cloze tests in relation to psycholinguistic conceptualizations of reading comprehension . Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Dallas, TX.

16.

Shanahan, T. and Kamil, M. 1982: The sensitivity of cloze to passage organization . In Niles, J.A. and Harris, L.A. , editors, New inquiries in reading research and instruction, Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

17.

Shanahan, T. and Kamil, M. 1983: A further comparison of sensitivity of cloze and recall to passage organization. In Niles, J.A. and Harris, L.A. , editors, Searches for meaning in reading/language processing and instruction, Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference .

18.

Taylor, W.L. 1957. 'Cloze' readability scores as indices of individual differences in comprehension and aptitude. Journal of Applied Psychology 41: 19-26.