ED 194 881

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

'SPONS AGENCY

DOCUMENT RESUME

CS 00 5 72e

Jongsma, Eugene A.Cloze Instruction Research: A Second Look.ERIC Clearinghouse or. Reading and 'CommunicationSkills, Urbana, Ill.: International ReadingAssociation; Newark, Del.National Inst. 4f Education (DREW) Washington,D.C.

PUB DATE 80CONTRACT 400-78-0026NOTE 55p;AVAILABLE FROM International Reading Association, 800 Barksdale Ed.

Newark, DE'19711 (Order No. 867,, $4.00 non-member,'$2.5b' member)

!DRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Cloze Procedure:Elementa7T Secondacry E4ucation:

Literature Reviews:*Reading Instruction: ResearchNeeds: !Teaching Methods

ABSTRACT _

The purpose of this mcnograph is td review_andsynthesize the_literature pertaining directly to the use:of cloze:asa teaching technique. The literature review is arranged into:eight

,(1`_,(1`_sections: analysis of comparative studies, in which studies thathave compared the. cloze procedure are examined:. (2) analysis ofinstructional goals, in which the effectiveness of cloze fordifferent instructional purposes is reviewed: (,3) -analy:si of,materials, in which the use of cloze with various types of 'readingmaterials_and_the_transfer_effects_of_cloze_are_discussed4analysis and_reading ability: (5) analysis of_teaching_proceduresi7.in_which_discussion. groupings sequencing, andIength_of_in-Struction_are_examined: (6l_analysiffo.f_deletionitrategies:_47)__analysis_of scoring-- methods: and (B)_ _ analysis ofstudents attitudes. Following the individuaa_analysesitheconclusions of the:complete review are summarized. The..monograph alsocontains:a discussion of future, directions for research andinstructicn:involving cloze. Each study reviewed in the:monograph issummarized in an appendix. (FL)

***********************************************************************;* Rep-roductions supplied-by FOPS -are the_best that can be ,made ** from the original document; ***************************************.*********************************

I IU _0 EAWILT ME N T_ 0 F HEALTH.

EbUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EOUCATION

DOC_U_MENE _HAS__ III I N _NE PP_OzDUCE -EX -AC -AS PE CU IVE 0 1 P-OMTHE PERSON OPOEFGANctA T-ION DH IC.LN.ATING IT POINTS 01 VIEW ON OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NEC( %SAW'. PRI-SEN OF 1ACiALNAEIONAI 11,1%1111111 01EDUCATION POSITION OW Poi icy _ -

Ooze Instruction Research:

A Second Look

Eugene A. JongsmaSouthern Methodist University

Reading Information Series:Where Do We Go?

1980

IisInternational Reading ASsociation

800 Barksdale Road, Newark, Delaware.19711

ERIC]Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills

National Institute of Education

4 2

IlaInternational Reading A, ciation800 Barksdale Road, Ne rk, Delaware 19711

[ERIC(Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills1111 Kenyon Road, Orbana, Illinois 61801 -

AIHThis publication was prepared With funding from the National InsRute ofEdUcation, U.S. Department of Education. under contract no. 400278 -0026.Contractors undertaking such projects -under government sponsorship_areencouraged to express freely their judgment In professional and technicalmatters, Prior to publication, the manuscript was submitted to the InternationalReading Association for critical review and determination of professionalcompetence. This publication has met such standards. Points of view or opinions,however, do not necessarily represent the official view or opinions of either theInternational Reading Association or the National Institute of Education.

Printed in the United States of America, 1980

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataJongsma, Eugene A.

Cloze instruction research.

(Reading information series)Bibliography: p.1. Cloze procedure. I. Title. II. Series.

LB1050.3.J66 371.3' 028 80-21867ISBN 0-87207-867-1

Contents

Foreword u

Preface int

Introduction3 Review of the Literature

Analysis of Comparative Studieti :4Analysis of Instructional Goals 6

Analysis of Materials 7

a Analysis of Age, Grade Level and Reading Ability- 9Analysis of Teaching Procedures 11

Analysis of Deletion StriitegieS Z16Analysis of Scoring Methods 18Analysis of Student Attitudes 19

Summary 2022 Future Directions for Research and Instruction

Random versus Selective Deletions 23Sequencing Instruction 27References 31

Supplementary Resources on Cloze Instruction 35

Clone Bibliographies 38

Appendix. 39Summary of C1620 Teaching Studies 39

iii

IRA PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE 19:80-1981 Robert B. Ruddell, University of.California at Berkeley; Char-big PhylliSS Adaini, University of Denver AlisonBellack, Largo (Florida) C & 1 Center Janet R. -Binkley, IRA Faye R. Branca;IRA Jerry 'L. Johns, Northern Illinois University Lloyd W. _Kline; lux e CarolKuykendall, Houston (Texas) PublicSchools Eleanor :Ladd; Uaiv-etAty of SouthCarolina at Spartanburg Grover Matthewson; Florida- International UniversityChristina Neal; SL Albans; %Vett Nelson, tale University of New Yorkat Binghamtv 0. 011ila, University of Victoria David Pearson, Universityof Illinois at Champaign Marfa Elena Rodriguez, Asociacion Internacional de Lectura;Buenos Aires Carol Sager, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts S: Jay Samuels; UniVeitityof Minnesota Lyndon W. Searfoss; Arizona State Uhiv-eiiiik Ralph C. Staiger,IRA Judith Thelen-,_Frostburg (Maryland) State College Joanna Williams, TeachersCollege; Columbia University.

The International Reading Association attempts, through its Rublications, to provide aforum fora wide spectrum of opinion on reading. This policy permits divergentviewpoints without assuming the endorsement of the Association:

4

iv

Foreword

When Wilsori-raylor introdifeed cloze tests; researchers werequick to see their usefulnessfor measuring the difficulty ofmaterials. But few of u thought they would make goodteaching exercises. We ought that the items_ were toocomplicated psychologic y. Many different cues have to beused to answer an item. ach cue makes use of a different kindof skill. And it seemed hard to find even two items that wouldprovide practice on the same skill. So doze exercises would notprovitte the kind of systematic practice that we thought wasneeded:

- Fortunately; a few people_disagreed with us and set outto prove us wrong. As Jongsma reported in his' earliermonograph; initial results: were not very promising. But theresearchers _ pressed Ahead and- others joined them. Now; a -short time lateri_ their results have been so abUndant andproductive that Jongsma has been asked to write this secondreview.

There is mich to praise about the present review; butthree features seem especially valuable. The first is_the clarityand brevity with which Jongsma summarizes_ this widelyscattered_ body of research. His earlier review did the samething and helped to touch off_many of the studies he reviewsnow This_present_version nadoubt will be even more seminal.

Second; teachers-and researchers should carefully Ludyhow Jongsma organized this review; for that organization

JV

carries a very important message. Jongsma believes that dozeexercises are no,t- by_lhemselves, a complete instructionaltreatment. Variations in the students we teach and differencesin how we make, present, and score, cloze exercises result inimportant distinctions in the kind and 'amount of skillsstudents learn. The problem, as Jongsma sees it, is to find outwhich, variations serve which purposes best for which,students.

The third feature is the provocatiVe.way Jongsma putshis_cOnclusions Some might think he should haKe _qualifiedthem heavily: But that would have hidden the gips in ourknowledge of doze exercises. Instead; he states them boldly;hurling-them as challenges to the teachers and researcherswho will do the next wave of studies. Judging ;from thosereviewed here, that wave should be very interesting indeed.

John R. BormuthUniversity of Chicago

C

vi

Preface

The Educational Resources Information Center 4ERIC) is anational information system developed by the United StatesOffice. of Education and now sponsored by the NationalInstitute of EdUcation (NIE). It provides ready access todescriptions of exemplary programs, research and develop-ment efforts, and related information useful in developingmore effective educational programs.

Through Its network of specialized centers or clearing-houses; each of which is responsible for a particular educa-tional area; ERIC .acquires, evaluates, abstracts, and indexescurrent significant information and lists this information inits reference publications.

ERIC/RCS, the ERIC Clearinghouse op Reading andCommunication Skills, disseminates educational informationrelated to research, instruction, and personnel preparation atall levels and in all institutions. The scope of interest-TA theClearinghause includes relevant research reports, literaturereviews, curriculum guides and descriptions:' conferencepapers, project or program reviews; and other print materialsrelated to all aspects of reading; English; educational jour-nalism,_andispeech communication.

Tile ERIC system has alreadx made availablethroughthe ERIC Document Reproduction gysteinmuch informativedata. However, if the findings of specific educational researchare to be intelligible to teachers and applicable to teaching,

ronsiderable._ bodies._ of data inn At be reevaluated, focused,triniSlated; and molded into an es_sentildly.tlifferent context.Rather than resting at the point if making research - reportsreadily accessible,: NIE has directed the separate clearing,houses tp work with professional organizations in developinginfOrmation aintlysi papers in specific areas within the scopeOf the Clearinghouses.

Clozc histrto.tzon Research: A Scromt Look is acompanion volume- of The (' /o:e Procedtin As *TeachingTvehnique,-also by Eugene Jongsma and published in 1971 byERIC/CRIER and the Jnternational Reading Association.ERIC/RCS. -is_ please to cooperate with the InternationalReading Association in making this hook available.

Bernard O'Donnell1)irectnr, ERIC/RCS

In,troduction

When The Cloze Procedure _ As A _Teaching T_echnique(Jongsma; 1371) was ,written; the clozeiprocedure had alreadybecome a widely_ used research tool. However; doze was just .

beginning to make its way into the classroom as a device forteachers to use Unlike the vast body'of research on cloze as areadability and assessment technique, the literature on clozeas an instructional technique was sparse. Only nine studies,nearly all the existing research up to that point, were reviewedin that volume. One of the major conclusions reached in that ,

review was ".;;;the research evidence; at the present time, doesnot suggest that the doze procedure is an effective teachingtechnique" (p.18) _

In the ipokist ten years; a plethora of iarticles have ap-peared extolling the instructional virtues of doze. This seemsto raise a curious-paradox. Either practitioners aren't heedingthe advice of researchers or researchers aren't discoveringwhat practitioners know to be true. In any event, much hashappened in the past ten years and perhaps it's appropriate totake a- fresh look at the issue.

Reading_ Information Series: Where- Do We Go? wasoriginally_ conceived _by_ ERIC/CRIER-to serve as a stimulusfor _research; Aimed at college - professors and graduatestudents, the series sought to review selected topics, with thehope of extending and strengthening research on those topics;Apparently, the series has succeeded. In this voltme; thirty-six

studies -have been reviewed,: contrasted with nine studiesincluded in the 1971 review. Tskenty-si x of the thirty-six studiesare ,doctoral dissertations.

The purpose of -this monegraph is similar to that of theearlier _volume:.that iTT:_to critically review and synthesize theliterature pertaining_ directly to the uSc_of doze as ateachingtechnique: In addition; weaknesses in the existing literaturewill be identified and suggestions will be made regarding

..future-research.Perhaps a few words should be mentioned about .the

literature search that was conducted in preparation for thismonograph. The literature search was basically limited to thepast ten yoais,, 1970-1980; the period since the'1971 review. Onestudy conducted prior to 1970 has been urcluded simplybecause it was omitted from the previous _review. None Qf thestudies included in the-earlier volume has been re- reviewed. Inan- effort to identify all the- existing research, searches weremade of the following data bases:

Current,Indei to .Journals in. EducationDissertation Abstrai7ts'internativnalResources in EducationPs-3;ChologicallAbstractsLanguage and Language:Behaior Abstracts .

Because emphasis in this review is on: theAinds ofquestions that have been asked and the general findings, thereview was limited -to published sources, inclUding Disser-tation Abstracts, International, and did not attempt to gatherthe original unpublished dissertationS.

All of the studies which had used the -doze procedurewere screened: Needless to_say, a _vast amount of research hasbeen conducted either using_ _doze__ as__ _a .:tool to examinelanguage variables or investigating characteristics of the dozeprocedure itself:Only those studies which dealt directly withthe instructional use, of doze were selected and reviewed forthis monograph.

Cloze Instruction Research

Review of the Literature

The increased_ "growth :of _research on doze as a teachingtechnique precludes individual critiques of each study in thisvolume. Therefore, an effort has been made to analyze theliteratUre by selective dimensions. It is hoped that thisapproach will lead to a state-otthe-art` summary that ismeaningful and useful. All of the studies reviewed for thismonograph have been summarized in the Appendix.

The review of the literature has been organized into eightsections. Each section is _briefly described below:

L Analysis DI Comparative Studies: _Examines thosestudies which have compared the doze proceddre withother methods of instracan.

2. Analysis of _Instructional Goals. Reviews the effec-tiveness Of doze for different instructional purposes.

3. Analysis of Materials. Discusses the use of doze withvarious types of reading materials and the transfereffects of doze instruction.

4. Analysis of Age, Grade Level, and Reading Ability.Explores the effectiveness- of doze instruction fordifferent age, grade, or reading levels.

5. Analysis of Teaching Procedures: Examines discus-sion; grouping; sequencing; and length of instruction

6. Analysis'olDeletion Strategies. Reviews the effects ofdifferent deletion systems and modified cloze formats.

7. Analysis of Scorin-g Methods. Compares the instruc-tional value of different scoring systems.

3

8. Ana ly,Os of Student Attitude. Examines Studentattitudes toward doze instruction.

Immediately following the eight individual analyses,the conclusickns of the complete review will be summarized.

Analysis of Comparative StudiesIS the 'doze procedure an effective teaching technique2

Most investigators have sought to answer _tha,t questionthrough a comparative, rather :than: an-. absolute approach.That is' doze has been compared to other meth-ads of teachingreading as well as other methods of teaching content subjects.TAenty7seven of the thirty-six studies have used thiS aPProach.

Cline has been compared to a wide vanety of instruc-tional methods: conventional comprehension exercises (COX,1974; Culhane; 1972; Ellington, 1972; Houston, 1976; Johns,1977; Kazmierski; 1973; Martinez; 1978; Pepin; 1973; Pessah,1975; Rhodes, 1972;,Rynders; 19fi;andStevvart;1967); lecture-discussion (McNamara, 1977; Phillips; 1973; and Po_wer; 1976);SQ3R (McNamara, 1977); daity silent reading (Faubian;1971);Self-SeleCted reading and phonic exercises (Paradis_ & Bayne;1975); diinnatizatian (Blackwell; et al.; 1972); reading centers(Sampson, 1979); oral language drills: (Whitmeri 1975); oralreading (Kennedy, 1972); regular algebi-d instruction (Byrnham, 1973); regular geometry instruction (King, 1974); regular.'.spelling instruction (Clanton, \1977); rgulat social StiidieSinstruction (Grant, 1976); and c6nventional foreign languageinstruction_(Greenewald, 1974).

The imostj common; procedure has been to employ: anexperimental design in which some of the students receive one.or more forms of doze instruction (experimental group) whithe remaining skrients receive the -'iegular" or "traditionaP_method of instruction or some alternative method contrived forthe study (control group):

These comparative studies, which are common twoeducational jesearch, have certain inherent iveaknesses,Beldam clo4 the sole treatment_ received by the experimentalgroup. Cloze instruction is usually just one of ma effortsdiTyted at improving reading ability during the typic schoolday. These studies are also especially vulnerab e to theHawthorne effect which accompanies novel meth dS of

4 Cloze IristractIon Research

instruction. Inability to control extraneous variables in. suchstudies also threatens internal validity.

Given- the limitations of these studies, the literaturestrongly indicates that- doze is no better or no worse thanconventional methods of reading instruction. Seventeen of thetwenty-seven comparative studies (63 percent) found no significant differences between doze and other instructional methods.Three studies (Burnham; _19-73; Grant, 1976; and Sampson,1979); or 11 percent found some differences favoring doze.Strong differences in support of doze were found- in sevenstudiesi(Bernath; _1977; Blackwell; et al.; 1972; Culhane; 1972;Kennedy, 1972; Martinez, 1978k Pessaha; 1975; and Whitmer;1975), or 26 percent of the total.

These results closely parallel those of earlier dozeinstruction research. In the previous revieW(Jongsma, 1971);six of the nine studies were comparative studies. Four of the sixstudies (67 percent) found no significant differences betweendoze and other methods of instruction; one (17 percent) fouridsome _differences favoring. doze; and- one (17 percent) foundstrong differences in support ,of doze.

One may well wonder why differences were found in afew stddies_ but not in the overwhelming majority. One poscs/ibleexplanation may lie with the control treatments that doze wascompared to Whitmer (1975); for example; compared the use ofwritten doze _exercises in French with oral drills and causeries(informal- dints) and then evaluated- progress on a stan-dardized French reading_ test.J3lackwell (1972) compared theuse of doze exercises with dramatization and assessed gaidson a standardized reading test. Keymedy (1972} comparedauditory and visual doze training -with oral reading and notraining- and -then assessed the effects on doze tests and astandardized listening-reading test. It would seem that in eachof -these studies, the control treatments were not focusedspecifically on improving_ reading. Yet their effectiveness wasjudged on the basis of reacting tests= The dependent or criterionmeasures were simply more closely aligned with dozeinstruction than: they were with the -other methods used

Comparative studies don't fully answer the question:ofeffectiveness. Statistical testing in such studies is usuallydirected at <determining if there is a significant differencebetween treatments. The finding of no significant differences

Review of Literature 5

may mean the treatments are equally- effective or equallyineffective. As- rTntioned earlier; seventeen studies reportedno significant differences between doze and the otherinstructional methods: An effort was made to look beyond theirnon-significant differences to determine whether the use ofdoze resulted in absolute:or real pYogress. Thiat is; did-the doze

groups make progress from pre- to posk-assess7menl, despite their lack of superiority over their controlcounterparts? Five of the investigators (Clanton, 1977;McNamara, 1977; Rynders, 1971; Stewart, 1967; and Greene-

, wald, 1974) report significant gains in achievement, eventhough there were no differences among treatments. Rynders,for example, found that the sixth graders in his study mademean gains of six months in comprehension, after five weeks ofinstruction, using either cloze or more conventional compre-hension exercises; Seven of the studies (Cox; 1974; Ellington;1972; King; 1974; Paradis & Bayne; 1975; Phillips; 19 3; Power;19:76; and Johns, 1:977)_do not mention absolute_g_am ; makingit impossible to judge the effectiveness of cloze. The remainingfive studies ( Faubion; 1971; Houston, 1976; Kazmierski; 1973;Pepin, 1973; and Rhodes, 1972) found cloze instruction, as wellas the comparative treatment, to be ineffective.

To summarize the analysis of comparative studies, then,it appears that the c1oze procedure can be an effectiveinstructional technique. However, doze is no more or lesseffective than many of the conventional instructional methodsthat are widely used:

Analysis of Instructional GoalsThe doze procedure -has been used for a variety of

purposes: to improve general reading achievement, to increasereading or listening comprehension,- to develop readingvocabulary, to increase reading speed, to improve spelling, toincrease knowledge of- content subjects; _and to improve theability to read content area material; One may analyze theliterature by looking at differential effects for variousinstructional purposes. Is the doze procedure more effective forcertain instructional_ goalsfor instance, cOmprehensidn orvocabularythan it is for others?,

6 Cloze Instriictton Research

- Three conclusions seem to emerge when the literature isanalyzed in this fashion. First; the cloze procedure has beenmost effective in developing comprehension. A large majorityOf the investigators have used doze for this purpose.Regardless of whether progress is assessed with standardizedachievement tests or with project-developed doze tests, clozeinstruction is as equally effective as conventional methods ofcomprehension instruction. Second, doze does not seem to beeffective in improving reading vocabulary. However, this maybe_a function of the way progresillas been evaluated: Nearlyevery investigator has used a standardized_v_ocahulary test inwhich words are presented in isolation: It's not surprising thatshort-term doze instruction has little impact on such mea-sures. Third, doze instruction -does appear useful in helpipgstudents learn to read and understand content material. Thestrongest evidence has been reported in- social studiesi(Grant,1976; Paige; 1976; Martinez; 1978; and McNamara, 1977) butthere is also some support in math (Burnham, 1973).,

Analysis of MaterialsOne way of analyzing the literature is to look at the types

of reading materials that were used. Is cloze instruction moreeffective with certain types of material than with others? Acommon dichotomY that is often made in the literature is the_distinction between narrative, or story like materials, andexpository, or content-based materials. Some studies employednarrative passages, others were restricted to exposition, andsome used a combination of both. No study was found thatspecifically investigated the differential_ effects of _dozeinstruction on type of materia L n cebo th significant and nonsignifiEant results were found for both narrative and exposi-tory materials; we have to conclude that doze instruction is nomore effective for any particular typeof material. A_ definitetrend was observed in that more and more researchers areusing doze to teach subject matter content or reading in thecontent areas. =,

Another aspect of materials analysis is the question.oftransfer effects. Does training in specific content materialsimprove general reading ability? Does training in general

Review of Literature 7

reading materials transfer to the reading of content materials? .

Several studies have explored this issue. ..

Three studies examined transfer effects within the area'of social studies. Grant (1976) provided all doze instructiorewith social studies materials. After nine weeks of instruction,ste found that students scored significantly higher on a test ofsocial studies content but did not improve on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Testi:a test of general reading ability.Martinez (1978) trained students in narrative materials thenassessed progress on a social studies doze test and a socialstudies content test. Significant improvement was observed on .

both tests. Like Grant, Guscott (1971 offered instruction onlyin social studies materials. He found significant improvementon the reading portion of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills but noton a social studies doze test. Guscott's findings, however, mustbe viewed with some skepticism since he used a posttest-onlydesign and had no assurances that the groups were evenlymatched.

Two sttidies explored transfer effects in- foreign lan-guage instruction Binkley (1975) found that doze trainingwith German passages did improve reading ability in Germanbut did not significantly increase performance on_the Neiwn-Denny. Greenewald (1974) found no significant difference on aFrench cloze test between students who received instruction onFrench doze passages and those who received training onEnglish doze passages.

Burnham (1973) used algebra materials for all dozeinstruction. Posttesting revealedtsignificant improvement inthe ability to read math materials but no comparableimprovement in the ability to read "ordinary English,"Likewise; Phillips (1973) found thatinstruction in introductorybusiness materials did nVransfer to the Nelson-Denny.

A slightly different form of transfer was examined byKennecry (1972). One experimental gioup received' auditorydoze training while another received visual doze training: Theeffects for both groups were assessed on listening tests andreading tests. Visual doze training was found to be the mostgeneralizable.

When these studies are viewed collectively, sometentative patterns seem to emerge. It appears that training ingeneral doze-materials does transfer to the reading of specific

8 Cloze Instruction Research

content materialsOn the other hand; doze instruction inspecific content materials may result -in improved ability toread similar materials but is unlikely to raise general readingability. ThiS conclusion is somewhat siieculative and should beviewed cautiously. Perhaps transfer effects are an issue worthexploring in future research.

One final aspect of instructional materials ahould bementioned and that is difficulty. There are indication§ thatmany researchers may have used materials that were toodifficult for their students. Perhaps a few examples Willillustrate this point. In- constructing her doze posttest,Martinez (1978) selected a passage from a sixth-grade socialstudies textbook which the students had notbeen exposed to. Asubsequent readability check revealed that the Passage waswritten at a tenth-grade level of diffieulty. Yet; the passage wasstill used. In the Grant (1976) study, students who had receiveddoze instruction for nine weeks_ still scored, on the average,below 30 percent correct on the doze posttest, clearly a sign offrustration. Although Rhodes (1972) prepared passages at eachlevel of the Dale-Chall scale, he prepared twice as many at thehighest level, college difficulty, supposedly to prevent, ceiling,effects: It's quite likely that most of these passages were muchtoo difficult for his sixth graders.

It's impossible to assess what effect excessive difficultymay have had on the studies reviewed in this monograph.Anyone who has ever worked a cloze exercise knows it's=adiffiCult task. The practice of judging students' readingabilities on the basis of scores on a standardized test and thenassigning doze exercises of the same level Should be viewedwith skepticism. Future researchers, as well as PraCtitionerg,need to be more cautious in matching doze instructionalmaterials with their students' abilities.

AnalYsis of Age; Grade Leva'and Reading Ability(Another way of analyzing the literature is to lOok at

differences among age or grade levels.. Is doze instructionbetter suited for a particular age grotip? The research has beenfairly evenly_distributed across_grade levels. Approximately 17percent of the studies have been conducted with primarychildren, 36 percent with intermediate grade students, 19

er71'

Review of Literature

percent with junior-senior high schoolers, and 28 percent withcollege students.

When the result:4 of the studies are analyzed by the graderanges mentioned above, no clear pattern emerges. Clozeinstruction has been strongly successful, moderately success-ful, and unsuccessful at all grade ranges: There is no evidenceto support the use of doze instruction at one particular graderange,, as opposed_to another One point is _worth noting here,however. It is often recommended that the use of doze berestricted to fourth grade and above. There is sufficientevidence to suggest that doze instruction can be just aseffective with primary grade childrerj, provided it is used in aform similar to that employed by Gunn and Elkins (1976),Kennedy (1972), Sampson (1979), or Paradis and Bayne (1975);

The effectiveness of doze instruction- may also beanalyzed by the personal= characteristics of the learners: Is

doze instruction more effective with particular types, ofreaders, say high ability or low ability students? Six studieshave utilized levels by treatment designs to examine thisquestion (Cox; 1974; Culhane; 1972; Guscott, 1971; Kazmierski,1973; Rhodes; 1972; and Yellin, 1978). In each study, exceptCulhane; which will be discussed later, the researcherstratified the sample on the basis of reading ability which wasusually determined by scores on a standardized test. Thisstratification usually resulted in three groupsabove average,

and below average readers. This type of design allowsfor the testing of aptitude-treatment interactions. That is, theinvestigator can explore whether a certain type of treatment ismore or less effective with particular types of students:

In every case, there was no significant interactionbetween reading ability -and tbie type of doze instruction, Theone exception is Culhane: He tratified hissample on the basisof IQ scores; rather than reading ability. He then looked at theinteraction between intelligence and method of scoring dozeteaching exercises (exact replacements versus synonyms). Asignificant interaction was found, indicating that synonymscoring was more effective with low IQ students. SinceCulhane's_ is the only instance of this interaction, it shouldprobably be viewed as tentative until confirmed _in futurereplications. Overall;: the research consisterit13"i indicates thatdoze instruction is no more/no less effective for particular

10 Cloze Instruction Research

levels of reading ability nor are certain types of doze formatsbetter suited for particular learners. _

Analysis of Teaching ProceduresCloze can be presented to students in so many different

ways that it is difficult to judge its effectiveness withoutconsidering -the particular ways in which cloze was presentedand used. This -section will examine the specific presentationfeatures: of discussion, grouping, sequencing, and length ofinstruction.

Discussion.. One of the criticisms made of early dozeinstruction research was the lack of real teaching. Manyinvestigators relied on doze to do all the work. It was believedthat simply having students complete a specified number ofdote exercises would result in improved reading ability: In thefirst monograpik (Jongsma; 1971); it was suggested that futurestudies_ might explore the effects of discussion on dozeinstruction:

Four studies specifiCally assessed the effects of discus-sion.:Cox (1974) _compared three instructional treatments ondisadvantaged fourth graders. In the first condition, theteacher_gave ten minutes of, instruction on the use of contextclues after which students silently and independently com-pleted _a doze exercise and then checked their responses. Thesecond treatment consisted of students! first completing a clozeexercise independently and then_ participating in teacher-ledclass! discussion of the responses and clues. Discussion wasfollowed by a new cloze exercise for reinforcement._The thirdgroup read the same_passages intact and answered multiple-choice _questions. _Class discussion ;of their answers andselected oral rereading for verification followed. Cox found nosignificant differences. among the three treatments.

Yellin .(1978) compared a "product approach" and a"process approach" to doze instruction. The product approachwas essentially a self-instructional method. Students _coin-pleted doze exercises silently and independently; then scoredtheir responses against the exact replacements provided by theteacher. In the process approach, students worked _dozeexercises cooperatively in small discussion groups while the

Review of Literature 11

teacher served as a facilitator. No significant differences werefound between the two groups.

Faubion (1971) also examined the effects of discussionwith fourth grac*rs: One experimental doze group simplycompleted a doze exercise, silently and independently, eachday and then was given the previous day's exercisein correctedform. The second experimental group followed a similarpattern' except they discussed the previous day's exercise,verbalizirtg the appropriateness o / their choices. A third groupread_ the same passages silently in an intact form. There wereno significant differences among the three treatments.

Pessah (1975) looked at the effects of integrating dozeinstruction into -a remedial reading_program at the collegelevel. A control group which received the "regular" remedialinstruction was compared to three experimental doze groups.Two of the cloze groups used discussion while the third_wascompletely individualized. Although the experimental groupsoutperformed the control groups, there were no significant:differences among the three experimental group

Contrery to logical expectations, studies that havespecifically tested the effects of discussion havt consistentlyfound that doze instruction with discussion is no moreeffective than independent completion of doze exercises. Doesthis mean that discussing clone exercises is unproductive and awaste of time? Not necessarily_ First, some investigators havefound doze instruction with discussion to be successful. Forexample, Grant (1976), Gunn and Elkins (1976), Martinez(1978), Rynders (1971); Sampson (1979), Sinatra (1977), andSmith (1970) all made discussionan integral part of instructionand found it effective, even though discussion wasn't anisolated factor thaf was tested. However, inclu_ding discussiondoesn't- guarantee success as Johns' study -(1977) illus-trates. Second, discussion as a research variable is rathernebulous. Effective discussion depends upon many conditionssuch as the teaches ability to recognize syntactic andsemantic clues to doze replacements, the ability to commu-nicate those clues to students, students' abilities to perceiveand = internalize those clues, and probably a host of otherconditions. It's impossible to judge the quality of discussionfrom written research reports. Although the studies that havespecifically tested for the effects of_discussion don't confirm

12 Cloze Instruction Research

its effectivenessWhen all the research is taken into consider-ationthe literature seems to suggest that doze instruction islikely to be more effective with discussion than without it

One other aspect of discussion is worth noting and thatis who leads the discussion. In somestudies, the teacher tookcontrol of the discussion with intentions to "teach" predetermined concepts. In other 'studies, the teacher served as afacilitator to small student discussion groups and teachingseemed to be incidental. In still other studies, the students weresolely responsible for the discussion process. Does the methodused make any- difference? Only one study looked at thisparticular aspect of instruction. Culhane (1972) found teacher-led_ discussion fallowing cloze exercises to be significantlymore effective than student-led discussion:

Grouping. Another issue that is closely related_ todiscussion_ is that of- grouping. Do certain grouping patterns

- facilitate the use of doze? Only one study could be found thatspecifically examined this question. Rynders (1971) comparedthe use of doze- exercises with the use of intact passagesaccompanied by interpretive comprehension questions. Withineach treatment, students were assigned to either homogeneousor heterogeneous discussion- groups. In other words, type ofgrouping was built into the study as a testable factor. Ryndersfound no significant differences between these two types ofgrouping patterns.

Sornestudies have used doze instruction in a completelyindividualized manner: _Others have relied heavily on smalldiscussion groups of three to five students each. Still othershave used whole class_ instruction, even to the point wherestudents didn't have individual copies of the doze exercises butworked them collectively via an overhead projector. At thiSpoint, there is no empirical evidence4o suggest that one type ofgrouping arrangement is more effecti'Ve than another for dozeinstruction.

Sequencing. Whenever various levels or types of dozematerials are used for instruction, sequencing- becomes- anissue. Are some sequencing patterns_ more_ _effective thanother's? Only one investigator specifically tested for a se-quencing effect: Power (1976) prepared a series of 23 dozeexercises to use with college students enrolled_ in a develop-mental- reading course. The passages were all taken from

Review of Literature 130 4')

college textbooks and sequenced in order of difficulty. Oneexperimental cloze group received the exercises in ascendingorder of difficulty; the other experimental group received themin descending order. Although a- significant difference wasfound for order, it was a fluke. Subsequent analysis revealedthat the difference was due to only one of the 23 passages. Inessence, then, order of difficulty made no difference. Thismay,however, be a function of the limited ;range in difficulty

' represented' in this study.In a- very general sense, researchers hay.Z approached

sequencing in one of two waysvery carefully or not at all..Either they systematically sequence instructional activities interms of difficulty or purpose or they develop a blanket set ofcloze exercises which differ very-little in difficulty Dr purpose:

Four studies could be used to illustrate systematicsequencing. In developing materials for primary children,,Gunn and Elkins (19/6) began with individual sentences. Sin-gle deletions were obvious and highly predictable. Next camelanguage experience stories written by other children of thesame age. Later, exercises were contrived to demonstrate thatword meaning could- be acquired from context. Finally, otherpassages were used to show the role of function words.

Kennedy (1972) also used a progression fromindividualsentences to short stories: The first half of each training ses-sion was spent working through ten individual sentences.Short basal stories were used during the second half. The entireinstructionarsequence culminated with a slightly longer basalstory.

11 Martinez (1978) structured her instructional programaround- seven context clues. Each training session followed acarefully sequenced progression: 1) A ten minute "directedteaching lesson" was presented by tht teacher in which a par-ticular context clue was introduced and examples presented. 2)Students practiced that clue on ten individual sentences (onedeletion each). 3) Follow,up discussion focused on_the appropri-ateness of responses and signals to clues. 4) Students workeddoze passages containing selective deletions related to thatparticular context clue. 5Discussion centered on the use of theclue in longer passages. Each session lasted approximately 45minutes.

14 Glaze Instruction Research

Rhodes (1972) carefully monitored -the readabilitKof hisdoze exercises..A large pool of exercises was developed withseveral at each Dale-Chall level. Each- student's progressionthrough- the levels was, dependent upon successful perfor-mance: Preaumably; levels of difficulty were adjusted to stu-dents' rieeds.

All four _of the studies discussed above, except Rhodes,found clozeto be an effective instructional technique. Rhodes'study differs in two respects from the other three, which mightaccount for the lack of significant differences. First, there waslittle or no student discussion or direct teaching. Second, al-though readability was sequenced, passage length remainedfairly constant_ The similarities among Gann and Elkins, Ken-nedy, and Martinez should speak for themselves. Apparently,doze instraction which is carefully sequenced,_for example inlength and difficulty; and adjusted to the reading abilities ofstudents,_ is_ more effective than the undifferentiated use ofdoze exercises:

Length of instruction. In-the earlier monograph (Jongs-ma, 1971), many of the early doze instruction studies werecriticized for being too brief. Some investigators expected to seeprogress after as few as two_ exposures to doze training. Havestudies of a longer duration been conducted and does length ofinstruction seem to be an important factor?

The length of instruction in doze studies has rangedfrom twenty minutes (Greathouse & Neal, 1976) to sevenmonths (Pepin, 1973): The Greathouse Neal study involvedan idiosyncratic use of doze (to teach the spellings ofselectecfcontractions) and perhaps- should _not be considered _in thisanalysis. In general, the length of _instructional programsclustered in' the five to eight week range,. although severalprograms lasted as long as fifteen weeks or more._

There doesn't appear to be any clear relationship be-tween lengtpf instruction and program -effectiveness. Somerelatively sh6rt programs were successful while some long prop=grams- were not. Two, researchers monitored the effectivenessof their programs through interim testing. Martinez (1978)found that her students were giving significantly more syntac-tically and semantically acceptable responses after only twoweeks of instruction. Johns (1977), on the other hand, observed

Review of Literature 15

no differencesin performance after eleven weeks of his twenty -

five week program_. Not surprisingly; the conclusion seems' to lie that the'

quality.of acloze instruction :program ismore iniportant thanits length. The research also does not griie any firm evidence asto the minimum length needed before doze instruction is effecitiVe.

Analysis- of Deletion StrategieS.Five studies have specifically looked at the Varying et':

fects of different deletion systems.'Two of thoSe studieS foCusedonthe instructional 'effects .of deleting certain word types.a_ohns (197_7) Compared every-10th; modifier, and noon -verb de-letions whileRhoaes (1972) deleted every- 10th-word at randomand every-lOth noun7verh. The_other three studies examinedModified versions of doze. Paige.(1976).compared fiye variestions: whole _word deletions; first letter "of deletions;Jirst andrast 1etter,u11-colisonants; and four word multiple-chOice dole=tions. Houston (1976) deleted every-10th word" but contrastedwhole word deletions withtideletions which retained theletten Kaztrrierski (1973) compared random deletibns of wholewords wittah two different multiplechoiee formats:

In each of the five studies mentione&above, no'signifi-cant differences were found among the various types of dele-tion systems regardlesS of whether progress was assessed onstandardized reading_ tests or- project developed 'doze tests:Ormultiple-choice tests. Based upon the results of these studieS, itappears that the deletion system that is used has little or no dif-ferential effect on instruction: Apparently; modified doze for-,mats- such as the retention of specific letter clues do not alterthe effectiveness of the basic procedure.

In other studies; investigators have experimented withdifferent deletion systems even though the deletion systems; assuch, were not built into the studies as testable factors. It's im-portant to look at these efforts before drawing conclusions inthis area.

The Pessah (1975) and Martinez (1978) studies are simi-lar in that they both used context clues to guide the develop-merit of their instructional materials. Using SRA Reading for

16. .

Cloze Instruction Research

'Understanding exerCises, Pessah made only two deletions per-;iiaragraph. Tlie deletions were equally distributed amongthree context clues: 1) direct explanation, 2) indirect explana-tion; and 3)inference from general sense of the storY..Martinez,on the other hand, deVelopd a set of exercises based on sevencontext clues. In both' of these studies, deletionS were madevery selectively to give practice in using specific types of con-text clues_

TWO Studies conducted with ,Primary students also illus-trate the use of selective deletions. Gunn and Elkins (1976) firstmade highly predictable deletions from individual sentences-ofnursery rhymes and common expressiOns, then moved tOselec-

- tive _deletions within language-exPerience/stories: Later, theydeleted_ transition words like 'because" and "so" to stresscause-effect relationships; or wordslike "before" anct"after" toshow time order, or and,'"then" to point out condition.Some,of the exercises they created were deliberately aimed atinter-sentence context clues, Some deletions were as long asphrases or, -whole sentences. Kennedy (1972) also began withsingle` eletions in individual sentences. Form class and posi.tionwiti-lin the sentence were carefUlly controlled. Later, Whenshort stories were used, deletions were again limited to one persentence with form class controlled.' .

All four of these studies, Pessah, Martinez, Gunn and El-kins, and Kennedy, used deliberate, selective deletions to de-velop partieular contextual relationships. All four of theseStudies were similar in another respect. They each prOducedsignificant gains in student comprehension or use of contextClues. What sets these four studies apart from the five studiesdescribed _earlier in this section is the selective use of deletionsdesigned to achieveparticular _instructional goals.

In summary, it appears that selective deletion systemsaimed at particular contextual relationships are more effectiveinstructionally than semi random deletion systems such asevery-nth word or every -nth noun-verb. Of souse; theoretically,cloze has been built on the notion of semi-randomness and thiSnotion has held up well, particularly in readability research.However, for instructional purposes, selective deletion systemsseem to be more effective.

Review of Literature 17

Analysis_ of Scoring .MethodsWhen the _doze procedure is used for testing comprehen-

sion or assessing readability; the preferred scoring method is tocount only exact replacements. However; when used for in-structional purpose-8, teachers t,ihave been encouraged to acceptsynonyms as well as exact replacements. Does the method ofscoring have any effect on the instructional usefulness of thedoze procedure?

Only one study could be found that specifically ad-\ dressed that question: In two replications, Culhane (1972)

tested the difference between synonym scoring and the exactreplacement method. No significant differences were found be-tween the two methods in either study, although, synonym z.scoring was found to be more effective with low IQ-students, asmentioned earlier:

The method of scoring simply hasn't been treated as anexperimental variable in doze instruction research. Nearly allinvestigators have used the exact replacement method in scor-ing doze exercisesiand theiVepres on the training exercises sel-dom are used for data analys,

A few researchers 14,44 explored alternatiVe scoringmethods, even though the methods were not directly tested. Itmay be worth noting two of these efforts. Discussion was an in-tegral part of Sampson's (1979) _study. Following the comple-tion -of each doze exercise, small group discussion led by theteacher focused on the variety of acceptable answers and thereasons why some responses were- acceptable and othersweren't Samfison_evaivated his instructional program withtwo unique scoring methods: semantically consistent replace-ment scoring and divergent prOcluctiomA semantically consis-tent replacement was judged to be "..:one or more words whichreplace a deleted item:acceptably within -the context surround-ing_the deletion...[ancl]...make sense within the larger contextof the paragraph and story" (pp.63-64). This system, of course,accepts replacements which may differ syntactically and se-mantically from the original deletions, as long as they aremeaningful. Divergent production was assessed by tallyingthe number of semantically consistent*placements, per dele-tion, for each treatmeya group. Sampson folimisignificant dif-ferences favoring the- doze instruction group on both of these

"4. ti /18 Ctoze Instruction Research

measures.

Martinez (1978) applied some of the ideas from Goodmanand Burke's Reading Miscue inventory to her pre and postcloze tests inorder to examine the linguisticchanges in doze re-sponses that result from doze instruction. Replacements wereanalyzed for syntactic acceptability (Does the response changethe syntax of the sentence?) and semantic acceptability (Doesthe response change the meaning of the sentence?). She foundthat students receiving doze instruction improved significant-ly in both categories. Interim testing also revealed that syntac-tic acceptability improved more quickly thanttmantic accept-ability.

These two studies suggest that syntactic and/or seman-tic scoring systems may be more sensitive to changes that re-sult from doze instruction than exact replacement scoring orconventional-,comprehension tests: This would have implica-tions for the e valuation_ of cloze instruction. The literature of-fers no clear answers as to which scoring method should beused during the actual instructional process. Common sensewould suggest that if daze is used for instructional purposes,synonymsprisemantically acceptable replacements should beencouraged; but there is no research evidence to support thisbelief. It should also be recognized that synonym or semanticscoring lacks the objectivity and reliability_ of exact replace-ment scoring. However, objectivity may be less important inteaching than in testing. Requiring students to come up with'exact replacements may be analogous to requiring the "oneright answer". to comprehension questions. ,

Analysis of Student AttitudesOne aspect of doze instruction -that has -been virtually

unexamined is the whole question of student attitudes. Do stu-denth enjoy working cloze exercises? Do they prefer eloze in-struction over,other forms of reading instruction? Do they finddoze a meaningful and challenging way to improve their read-ing? s

Martinez (1978) is the only investigator who systemati-cally gathered data regarding student attitudes._After threeweeks of doze instruction, she adMinistered an informal ques-tionnaire. In response to "I like doing cloze exercises," 22 per-cent responded "a lot"; 65 percent said "some "; and 13 percent

Review of Literature 9 (... 19Li

chose `_`not at all." A second item (`:eloze,-_re_sponses are...._")elicited 32 percent for "fun," 47 percent "O.K.," and 21 percentfor "boring." could hardly be depicted as over-whelmingly enthusi stic.

A number_ of researchers have subjectively observed_ intheir studieathatafter the initial novelty wore off, students be-came bored _doing_cloze exercises. There are three possible ex-planations for such boredom. First, is the lack of variety. Thetypical _approach has been_to_produce a pool of doze exerciseswhich follow the same format and look the same, even thoughthe content of the passages may change.- Second; in an effort todemonstrate the effectiveness= of clone_ instruction, many re-searchers_ may have overused the approach. In some cases, twoor three doze exercises were presented daily for several weeks:rven ice cream loses its appeal if you eat too much of it: Third;unfortunately some of the instruction has been dull; routine;and mechanical. For example; in several studies, students en-tered a seemingly endless cycle of independently working dozeexercises and then checking responses without any analysis ordiscussion of performance.

Like any other instructional technique, the doze proce-dare can be misused. To be effectivce, it should be used judi-ciously and in combination with other methods.

SummaryThe conclusions that have grown out of the analysis and

review of the literature are listed below:1. The doze procedure can be an effective teaching tech-

nique. However, it is no more nor no less effective than manyother widely used instructional methods.

2 The doze procedure is most effective in developingreading comprehension, or at least some of the skills involvedin the comprehension process: It is least effective in improvingword knowledge or vocabulary:

3. There is no evidence that doze instruction is more ef-fective for any particular type of material; such as narrative orexpository. It can be effective with content material. Instruc-4tion in general doze materials is more likely to transfer to spe-cific content matenals than specific training is to general read-ing.

20 Ctoze Instruction Research9

4. glaze instruction n_ o more effective for one age orgrade level than another. Th is_also no evidence that dozeinstruction-is__bttter suited to students reading either below,above;_ or on grade_leVel

Although_th_e_literature is mixed, doze instruction islikely_ to_ be_more _ef fective _when discussion_ i .focu sed on clueswhich signal responses and on the appropriateness of re-sponses:.

__ 6. There is no evidence that one type of grouping_ ar-rangement Is more effective than anotticr for doze instruction:

7. glaze materials which are carefully sequenced as.todifficulty, length, or purpose are more effective than undiffer-entiated exercises.-

8. The quality of a doze instruction program is more im-portant than its length. There is_ no firm evidence as to theminimum amount of instruction that is needed before doze iseffective.

9. Selective deletion systems aimed at particular contex-tual relationships are more effective than semi-random dele-tion systems: - _ -

10. Although the research shows no difference betweenexact replacement and=syno_ny_m_scoring, some form of seman-tically.. acceptable scoring should probably be encouraged forinstructional purpose&

11. There is no evidence that students.have more favor-able attitudes toward Ooze instruction than they do towardother forms of instruction.

30Review of Literature 21

Future Directions forResearch and Instruction

One of the major observations derived from the literature is thebroadened definition of the term "doze procedure." As origi-nally conceived by Taylor (1953), the doze procedure relied onthe semi-random sampling of whole words. By deleting every-nth worn, the odds were that the types of words deleted, forex-ample lexical or structural; would balance out over an entirepassage.in the past ten to fifteen years of doze instruction re-Beard', that definition, at least practice,-has changed con-siderably. The term "doze procedure" has been used to refer tothe deletion of individual letters _within words, groups of let-ters, individual words, phrases; - clauses; and entire sentences.In addition, the deletions often have been made systematical-ly, not randomly, in unrelated sentences rather than continu-ous prose. This raises a curious sort of queetion in this re-viewer's mind. When does a fill-in:the-blank task cease to be adoze procedure? A typical response to that question might be:What difference does it make, or who cares what it's called aslong as it works? The price we pay for ignoring that questionmay be the acceptance of faulty assumptions. Our knowledgeof clone measurement, such _issues _as_ validity and reliability,has been established through the collective efforts of research-ers following uniform procedures: When researchers experi-ment with modified formats, they usually assume that theirnew formats possess the same psychometric properties as tra-

22.

ditiorial doze. We should be cautious in transferring our knowl-edge about traditional doze formats to modified formats untilsufficient evidence supports such a transfer.

There are a number of unanswered questions regardingdoze instruction which could beaddressed by future research.How can doze best be used to supplement conventional meth-ods of reading instruction? What form should discussion takein teaching the doze process? How do task demands influencestudent_perforrnancerWhat method of scoring and feedback ismost effective for instruction? HoW_may_ doze best be used topromote_ the reading and learning of content_material? Do _theeffects of doze instruction transfer from one style of writing toanother or from one content area to another? How can the diffi -culty and _purpose of close instruction be altered through theuse of modified formats? As the above questions imply; futureresearch needs_to examine particular features of doze instruc,,tion, nOt simply compare doze teaching with conventionalmkhode of instruction.

Two major areas for future research and instruction willlae explored in some depth. First, the issue of selective deletionswill pe dikussed. How should they be made and for what pur-pose? Second, alternative methods of sequencing doze instruc-tion will be proposed.

Random versus Selective DeletionsThe literature appears to indicate that doze instruction

is -more effective at improving reading comprehension thanother aspectS of reading proficiency. Furthermore, selective de-letiona which 'are focused on particular contextual relation-ships have a greater instructional effect than random dele-tions. Perhaps an analogy would be useful in explaining thisdifference. Suppose one wanted -to improve his/her tennisgame. One way of doing so would be to simply go out and playlots of sets of tennis under game-like conditions._A second ap-proach would_ be to prat:rice on selected aspects of the game; saythe server backhand;_or the- volley_inr contrived non-game-likesituations. Working random deletion cloze exercises is some-whatlike playing sets of tennis. Some shots are easy; othersare. difficult. It's also difficult to predict_ before a set begins,what aspects of your game will be tested the most. Working se-

Future Directions ti

lective deletion exercises, on the other hand, is like practicingselectivwspects of your game. Eventually, of course, those se-lective aspects must be combined into a unified whole.

If doze exercises which _utilize selective deletions are ef-fectiVe, what process should researchers and practitioners fol-low in_ making deletions? What conceptual frameworks-preavailable for guidance in this area? Three possible frameworkswill be suggested.

One approach is to _use context_ clue classificationschemes, such as those of Artley (1943) and McCullough (1945),as a framework for making deletions. As reported earlier,Pessah (1975) and Martinez (1978) both developed cloze train-ing materials based upon particular context clue categoriesand found such instruction valuable. Lee (1978) has offeredsome practical suggestions for using this approach, particular-ly as applied to materials in the content areas. One drawbackto this approach is that the context clue categories often over-lap and are not _discrete. However, if the categories are chosencarefully and the training materials are unambiguous, thismethod can be effective. ';

A second approach might be to use the framework of-Halliday and Hasan (1976). Halliday and Hasan have devel-oped an elaborate systernior_analyzing and describing the se-mantic relations of text. Their framework consists of five dif-ferent types of cohesive ties: reference, substitution, ellipsis,conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Reference pertains to itemswhich make reference to somthing else for their interpretation.The three types of referen are tiasonal, demonstrative, andcomparative. Substitution re rs to the replacement of one itemby another. The three types of s bstitjltion are noininal, verbal,and clausal._Ellipsis; the omissi n of an i , is similar to sub-stitution and is etimesreferre taus" uhstitution_byzero,"that is; somethiri is lefttinsaid. Conjunction serves as _a cohersive device by lin ng together what is to follow with what has,gone before. Four typeslof conjunctive relations are additive;adversative, causal, and temporal. Lexical cohesion involvesthe use of vocabulary that is in some way related to previoUslyoccurring items. The two basic types of lexical cohesion are re-iteration and collocation.

243

doze Instruction Research

It 'would seem that researchers might be able to use theHalliday and Hasan system as a framework for making selec-tive deletions in doze training 'materials. For example, _plozeexercises could be-developed which focused on particular cohe-sive ties, such as causal conjunctive relations. Presumably,such instruction ,would increase students' ability to recognizeand comprehend particular semantic rekdionships and ulti-mately regult in improved comprehension. This approachcould be readily adapted to expository texts in content areas.

A third approach has been suggested by _Cambourne(1977) He conducted an exploratory pik)tstudy to-gain psycho-linguistic insights into the silent reading process by applyingReading Miscue inventory procedures to the doze procedure.Building upon Goodman's notion of three cueing systems (syn-tactic,_ semantic; and - graphophonic); Cambourne hypothe-sized that deletions could be made to assess a reader's use of thecueing_ systems. For example, he theorized that deleting wordswhich have a very high syntactic role to play, such as conjunc-tions, prepositions, and inflections, would give insights into areader'S use of the syntactic cueing system. Use of the semanticcueing system could be inferred from deletions of high informa-tion bearing content words, such as nouns, verbs, adjectives,and adverbs. Insight into the graphophonic cueing systemcould be gained by deleting selected letters. Cambourne thendeveloped doze tests containing deletion patterns describedabove and. administered them to elementary students stratifiedby reading ability;

Differences were noted_ between good and poor readers,which led eamboume to infer five specific reading a_bilities orprocesses that are needed to do well on cloze tasks. Those fiveare:4 1. Ability to refer back into the text to find a clue to

meaning.2: Ability to refer ahead in the text to find a clue to mean-

ing.3. Ability to use real world knowledgethe network of

meanings_ and relationships already known about thetopic or story being read:

Future Dirktions 25

4. Ability to use cumulative and logical build-up of story-line, i.e. monitoring the story/topic line to enable logi-cal predictions.

5. Ability to use letter clues.After identifying these five- abines, Cam-

bourne conducted a follow-up study. He created doze tests bysystematically making deletions aimed at each of the five cate-gorie& Another group -of elementary students, stratified byreading ability, was tested. The results were analyzed by read-ing levels in an effort to _distinguish between the processingstrategies used by good and poor readers.

In general; Cambourne's findings parallel those of mis-cue:analysis research. Above average readers make better useof the syntactic and semantic cueing sykems_More specifical-ly, above average readers use backward and forward-searchingbehaviors much more effectively than below average readers;above average readers bring to bear a wider range of accumu-late(' meanings and experiences; and above- average readersmaintain and monitor the story line more efficiently. Interest-ingly, there were no major differences between above averageand _below average readers'- use of the graphophonic cueingsystem It was also observed that average and below averagereaders produced a significant number of partial construc-tions. That is, many times their doze responses were accept-able only with the first portion of the sentence and not withwhat followed the deletion. Above average readers, in contrast,made relatively_ few partial constructions; Theiwreplacementstended to be either fully_ syntactic or totally wrong:

Cambourne's study is not, of course; a cloze teachings udy. However, it may have implications for doze instruction:If the five Proposed categories are indeed valid and if good andpoor readers differ in their ability to use the five processes; thenconceivably Cambourne's system could be- used as a frame -work for making selective deletions. Cloze instruction whichfollowed this approach would be directed at developing one omore of thefive basic processes. It should also be pointed outhat Cambourne's categories are closely related to Hallidaand Hasan's work; For example; backward processing may bethoughtZf as anaphora; forward processing as cataphora, anduse of real world knowledge as exophora; Although we have ev-

26 Ctoze Instruction Reseo;tch

iderice that children differ in their ability to use cohesive tiessuch as anaphora (Chapman; 1979; Kingston; 1977; and Ri-diek, 1976-77), the instructional uses of doze in, this area havegone unexamined. _

In summary, three conceptual frameworks _have beensuggested to guide researchers in designing doze instructionmaterials Which contain selective deletions: 1) context clueclassification schemes; 2) Halliday and Hasan's cohesive ties;and 3) Cambourne's' processing strategies. Cloze instructionwhich follows one or more of these frameworks will have amuch sharper and more specific focus. The doze exercisesthemselves will have fewer, more carefully selected deletions.

Sequencing InstructionOne of the conclusions derived from the literature review

is that doze materials which are carefully sequenced as to diffi=culty, length, or purpose are more effective than undifferenti-ated exercises. If such is the case, what guidance is available toresearchers and practitioners who wish to sequence doze in-struction? Three approaches to sequencing will be discussed.

Samuels and his colleagues (1974) Contend that dozeteaching studies haven't been auscessful because they "... didnot provide training on the subskilli necessary for successfuldoze performance and the failure to find differences_may havebeen due to the-students' inability-to perfornittrid profit fromdoze-type exercises" (p: 836). In an effort to design more speci-fic instruction; Samuels undertook a task analysis of _a partialniadel_of word identification. The outcome was the:identifica-tion of seven subskills which were believed to _underlie dozeperformance. The seven subskills are listed below:

L Ability to say a word given an initial sound.Example: Tell me a word starting with/n/.

2. Ability to determine the beginning letter of a spokenword.Example: What is the first letter in "girl"?

3. Ability to recognize visually the initial letter of a wordpresented orally.

Future Directions v 6 27

Example: What's the first letter' in _"bray "?Student chooses from among letters pre-sented visually, e.g., b, e; t; r,

4. Ability to use auditory context to predict words thatcould logically follow.Example: Finish this sentence. "My mother sleeps onher " (presented-

5. Ability to use auditory context to predict Weird(s) thatcould logically_ follow in_ a sentence hearing just theinitial sound of= the word. -- ,Example: Finieh this sentence. "The cat rah after the./m/ " (presented orally)

6; Ability to use visual context to predict words(s) thatwould logically follow in aientence without seeing theinitiaLletter of the Word:&cam* _Finish this sentence. The children open

" (piesented visually)7. Ability to use visual context to predict word(s) that

could logically follow in a sentence when given theinitial letter of the- target word.Example: Finish this sentence. "The girl ate the

b " (presented visually)Hypothesis /test training ,materials were developed: toteach-- the -seven Oiibekills. Two_ studies were conducted, onewith mentajly retard-6d students and anotherwith deficientthird grade readers. It was found that trainin in the sevensubskills improved the accuracy and_apeed of ward recognitionas well as performariee on doze teaks. Saitiiielfe subskill

sequence could. offer guidance toresearchers arid prattitibriersinterested in sequencing doze instruction fo primary leVelstudents.t- _A second approach to sequencing Ooze hasasbeen propdeed by Aulls (1978). Aulls' sertueilc.ifig s_ystem takesinto consideration thetype of deletions, the _rate of dele ons,and the difficulty of the reading material. '17riis visual dozetraining program consists of six methods of presenting doze.The directions for each method are listed below:

= :2_Method 1 .Delete every-10th word_ at random. Providethe first letter of each deletion.

(

I

Cloze litstrLctiOti Research28

Method 2. Delete every-lOthetructure word (noun deter-miners; _prepositions, pronouns, auxiliary

1 verb, and conjunctions).Method 3. Delete every-5th structure word.Method 4. ,Delete eVerSr:10th content word (noun, adjec-

tive, base verb, and adverb).Method 5. Delete every5th content word.Method 6. Delete every-5th word at random.In addition, Anna pi-OP-Imes that a:sequence be followed

within each method. The first doze exercise should be based ona language experience Story generated by the student. The nexttwo doze exercises should be based on material at the stud'ent'sindependent reading level. The next three exercises should bebased on materials at the student's instructional reading level.Thus a sequence of six doze exercises-would be used for_eachmethod and thirty-mix, exercises-- for- the_ _total_ program:IZesumably, the number of exercises could be varied depend-i g Upon student_performance and needs. Aulls also offerssuggestions for discussing; modeling, and questioning whichcould be-used throughout the training program. Although thisis a_-logically developed sequence," there is no empirical.evidence that this approach is effective.

Rankin (1977) has also proposed a series of sequencestrategies for teaching reading comprehension with the dozeprocedure. These strategies offer researchers and practitiOneita series of optional that -could= be used to modify and adapt thedoze procedure for instruction. The: strategies are outlinedbelow: .

I. Introducing the Cloze ProcedureA. Use aural doze. i

B. Use aural - visual doze.C. ,Use visual doze., -

II. Selecting Reading PassagesA. Begin with language experience materials then

proceed to materials from other- sourcesB. Begin with easy materials and proceed gradually to

more difficult readability levels. :

C: Begin with high-interest, narrative materials;proceed to less interesting, expository materials.

- ,

Future Directions 29

30

Choosing_Scoring ProceduresA. Use synonym scoring.B. =Use exact word scoring.

IV'. Selecting VVord DeletionsA. Rate of deletions.

I. Begin with a low deletion ratio (e.g. 1 deletion per10 words) and gradually proceed toward higherdeletion ratios (e.g. 1 dele n per 5 words) usingooze scores to determine ace.

B. Type of deletiona. '1. Use lexical deletions with prompts:2: Use structural deletions with _promPts:3. Use any _word deletions vath prom_pts.4. Use structural deletions without pronipts-5. Use any word deletions without prompts:6: Use lexical deletions_without prompts.

V. Determining Response TypesA. Format

I. Use multiple-choice = alternatives.2. Use "fill-in-theblank."

B. Multiple- choice options1. Use alternatives of different semantical mean=

ing an# from different grammatical classes than.the correct choice.

2. Use alternative of different semantical meaningand from the same grammatical class as thecorrect choice:

VI. Using_Visual CluesA. PicturesB. LettersC. Underline marksD. Length of blank space

VII; Using Reinforcements,A. Use weak reinforcements for easy materials;luse

strong reiriforcementh for more difficult materials.. B. Use strong reinforcementh for "uninteresting':

materials; use weaker reinforcements as the taskbecomes self reinforcing.

C. Use continuous- reinforcement; use intermittent'reinforcement.

Cloze Instruction Research

Rankin cautions that these strategies should be viewedas hypotheses until empirical studies have confirmed theirapplicability and effectivess.

In summary, three approaches to sequencing clozeinstruction have been. presented: 1 -) Samuels' task analysis

2) Aulls' visual doze training system; and 3).Rankin's sequence strategies. Although they are different,Common threads run through all three approaches. Only one ofthe three, Samuels', has been empirically tested and only on alimited basis. More research_is clearly needed to verify optimalsequences for presenting doze instruction. =

It is hoped that the results of future _research, combinedwith our current state of knowledge, will lead us to morejunjous and effective use of the doze procedure as a teachingtechniqite.

References

AARONSON, S. The use of a student-designed doze procedure as E1.44

vocabulary _tool; in Nacke (Ed.), Programs and practices forcollege reading (Vol. 2), Twenty - second Yearbook of the NationalReading Conference. Boone; North Carolina: National ReadingCenference, 1973. .

ARTIXY, _A.S._ _ Teaching:word meaning through conteit.' ElementaryEnglish Review, 1943; 20; 68-74-. _ _ .

AULI:13; _ M. :Developmental _-and -remedial reading in the middlegrades. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978: __-

BERNATH, M.K. Use of masked materials to develop Insights in_ wordattack and reading comprehension. Northridge, Calif.:-CaliforniaState University at Northridge; 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduc-

= don Service No ED 172172)RINK+EY, J.P. Cloze procedure in German for teaching anditesting

' reading:at the intermediate level (Doctoral dissertation, Univer-sity of Kansas, 1974Y Dissertation:Abstracts International, 1975,36; 677A7678A.4-University Microfilms No 75-17, 573)

BLACKWELL, J.M.; THOMPSON, R., & DZILTRAN, O. ATA inyeatigation in-'to the effectiveness of the doze procedure as a vocabulary, teachingtoot_Journal of Reading Behavior, 1972_, -4(41,-534:

BUFINHA1V1, BM. Use of the doze procedure taincreasamatheniatical,facility (Doctoral dissertationiArizona State University, 1973):Dissertation Abstracts International; 1973; 33; 3187B. (UniversityMicrofilms No. 73-384) .

References 31

1

CAMBOURNE; B. Some psYcholinguistici dimensions of lhe silentreading process: a_ pilot study. Paper presented at the annualmeeting.' ofi the Australian Reading:: Conference; Melbourne;August 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 16508-7)

CI MAN; Confirming children's use of cohesive ties in text: proricking. The Reading Teacher; 1979, 33, 317322.

cLANToN;i Pit; The effectiveness of the letter-doze procedure! as ainethcid-of teaching spelling (Doctoral dissertation, UniVerSitY ofArkansaa;!1977), Dissertation- Abstracts International; 1977; 38;2690A=2691A. (University Microfilms No;.11-23, 344)

COXi: J.K. A comparison of two instructional methods utilizing theC1626 procedure- 'and a more traditional method for improvingreading comprehension and vocabulary in context in a disadvan-taged fourth-grE ie elementary school sample: (Doctoral disSertii=lion, University of Southern Mississippi, 1974)- DiSSertationAbstracts International, 1975, 35, 6569A. (University MicrofilmsNo. -7 -5419; 580) :

cULHANE; J.NF% The ilSe.of an-iterative_ research process to study theadaptation of eloze for:improving the reading comprehension ofexpository materials. (Doctoral dissertation; Syracuse University;1972). -Dissertation Abstracts: International, 1973, 34, 997A.(University Microfilms Nb. 73=19, 794)-:_

ELLINGTON, 1:44.- EValuation_of the doze procedure as a teachingvice for improving reading comprehension (Dedoral dissertation;University of Georgia,4972). Dissertation Abstracts Internation=alz 1973; 33; 50317..(Univ_ersity: Microfilms No. 73415; 686)

FAUBION; N.N. The effects of training in the use of doze on the abilityOf feiiith grade pUpils to gain information from written-diScourse(Doctoral dissertation ;.Texas A&M University; 1971). DissertationAbStracts International; 1972; 32; 4486k (University MicrofilmsNo. 72-05;_655)

GRANT, P. The -doze procedure for improving sixth grade students'reading comprehension and understanding of social studiesmaterials. New Brunswick;_ New JerseT Unpublished master'sthesis; Rutgers University; 1976. (ERIC Dbciiiiient ReproductionService No. ED 141 754) :

GREATHOUSE, L.J.; & NEAL, B.J. - _Letter doze will conquer contrac-tions= The Reading Teacher, 1976,-39; 173-176.

Gat tNEwALD,-TA.J. The effects of citraining in doze con-. textual clue exercises upon third-year French students' ability to

titilite-Contect:(Doctoral dissertation; Universityof Wisconsin atMadison;i 1974).:Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974; 35;4128A. (University Microfilms No 7449; 918)

GUNN; P.V.; & ELKINS; J. Diagnosing and imprObing silent readingusing doze techniques or-so what? Brisbane; Australia: Queens-land University; Educational Research Cont-et. Paper presented at6th World Congress of Reading, Singanore, 1976. (ERIC DocumentReProdiiction Service No. ED 136 194)

32 Cloze Instruction Research

GUSCOIT-, C.E. The effect of doze precdure exercises on the improve-ment of reading achievement_ and of reading comprehension: ofselected sixth-grade students (Doctoral dissertittion,_ University ofAkron; 1971). Dissertation Abstracts_ International; 1972; 32;3861A. (University Microfilms No. 724:14, 051)

HALLIDAY; _M.A.K.; & H.ASAN; R. Cohesion in English. London) Long-man, 1976.

HOUSTON, A. An analysis of the doze procedure as a teaching tech-nique with disadvantaged children (Doctotal dissertation; Univer-sity of Connecticut; 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International,1976, 36 6459A. (University Microfilms No: 76-07, 192)

JOHNS, J.L. An investigation- using the doze procedure as a teachingtechniqwe Paper presented atthe meeting ofthe National ReadingConference, -New Orleans, Decerither 1977. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No; ED 159 656)

JONGSMA, E. ctoze procedure as a teaching technique. Newark,Delaware: International Reading Association; 1971.

ItAZMIERSKI, P.R. The effects of the cloze-procedure upon the literalunOerstanding of text materials by post secondary deaf students(DOCtoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1973): DissertationAbstracts International, 1974, 34, 7047A. (University MicrofilmsNo. 74-10; 152) =

KENNEDY,i D. Training with-the elezeprocedure, visually- and midi-torily, to iniprove the reading and_ ha telling comprehension of thirdgrade underachieving readers (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylva-nia _State UniversitSr; 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International,1972, 32, 6206A. (University Microfilms No. 72-13, 880)

KENNEDY, D., & WEENER, P. Visual and auditory training with thedoze procedure to improve reading and listening comprehension..Reading Research Quarterly, 1973, 8, 524:541.

KING, D,V, Aetudy of the use of the doze procedurein teaching planegeometry (Doctoral dissertation, University -of- Missouri at Colum-bia,= 1974): Dissertation_Abstracts _International; 1975; 36; 108A:tUniversitY Microfiliiis No. 75=16, -011)

KINGSTON; Aa: (Ed) Toward a psychology of reading and language:seThcad papers of Wendell W. Weaver. Athens, Ga.: University ofGeorgia Press; 1977.

LEE, JAY, Increasing comprehension through use of context clue cate-gories. Journal of Reading, 1978, 22, 259=262.

mareztr4zz, . The effect of teaching sixth graders to use contextcues to- complete cleze deletions -in -social studies materials(Doctoral- dissertation-,_ East Texas_ _State: University;_ 1978):Diiisertation Abstracts International, 1978, 39, 3503A. (UniversityMicrofilm No: 78-24; 144)

MCCULLOUGH, C.M. 'ficke recognition of context clues in reading.Elementary EngliWz Review, 1945, 22,1-15.

MCNAMARA, L.P. A study of the doze procedure as an alternativegroup instructional strategy in secondary school Ardencangovernment classes (Doctoral dissertation; Northern Illinois

References

.42

33

University; 1977): Dissertation-Abstracts International, 1978, 39,216A. (University Microfilms No. 78-11, 183)

PAIGE; The relative e y of fivemodified doze procedures forvocabulary instruction in seventh-grade social studies class(Doctoral dissertation; Mic to University, 1976). Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 977, 37, 5575A. (University Micro-films No. -77--05-:863)

PARADIS, & BAYNE, M. An examination of the use of doze tasksduring primary grade reading instruction. Reading Improvement;1977, 14; 57 -61.

PEPIN, B. The doze tklinicLue combined with high-interest; low-read-ability :reading materials, and language experience readingmaterials to improve the word knowledge and selected comprehen,sion skill abilities of pupils in correctivereading classes (Doctoraldissertation, St. Johns' University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts'International, 1974; 34; 3843A. (University Microfilms No 73-29,972)

PESSAH, N. The effect al various teaching techniques; involving thedoze procedure; upon the reading achievement of communitycoltege students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theInternational Reading Association, New York, May 1975. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No, ED 110 945)

PHILLIPS, B.D. The effect of the doze procedure on content achieve-ment and reading skills in a junior college introduction to businesscourse (Doctoral dissertation; University of Northern Colorado,I973), Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 34, 212A.(University Microfilms No. 73-16; 796)

POWER; M.E. An investigation of modifying the order of diffiCiiltY ofdoze passages- with higher education opportunity program _andspecial_ admit students (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse Univer-sity, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977; 38, 2597A.(University Microfilms No 77-24; 861)

RANKIN, E.P. Sequence strategies for teaching reading comprehen-sion with the doze procedure. In P.n. Pearson & J. Hansen (Eds.),Reading: theory, research, and practice, Twenty -sixth Yearbook of

-National Reading Conference. Clemson; South Carolina:N nal Reading Conference, 1977.

RHODES, L. The effect of a-cloze procedure methodology on readingcomprehension of sixth grade students of varying reading ability(Doctoral dissertation, University of Maine, 1972), DissertationAbstracts International; 1973; 33; 6598A. (University MicrofilmsNo 73-13, 079)

RICHEK, M.A. Reading comprehension of anaphoric forum in varyinglinguistic contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 1976:77, 12, 145-165.

RYNDERS; P. Use of the doze procedure to develop comprehensionskills in the intermediate grades (Doctoral dissertation, SyracuseUniversity; 1971) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 32,5676A. (University Microfilms No. 72-11, 863)

Cloze Instruction Research.4 o

SAMPSON, M.R. Utilization of the doze procedure as a teaching tech-nique (Doctoral dissertation; University of Aiizona, 1979). Disser:tation Abstracts International; 1979; 40; 3107A. (University Micro-

-films No.-79-27,578)wmittrELs; DAHL, ARCIIWMAETY-, T. Effects of hypothesis/

test- training on reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology,1974; 66; 835,844. _

SINATRA, B.C. The doze technique for reading comprehension_andvocabulary development. Reading Improvement,_ 1977,-14_, 86:9a

SMITH, E.L. Use of the doze procedure in improving comprehensionof junior college readers. In G.C. Schick & M.M.- May (Edo-.),Reading: igtocess and _ pedagogy; Nineteenth Yearbook of theNational FERading Conferenc-e, Volume II, Milwaukee, Wisconsin:National Reading Conference; 1970:-

STEWART, E.W. A comparative study of the effectiveness of doze andtextbook procedures in a:college reading program (Doctoral disser-tation, University of Houston, 1967). DissertationiAbstractsInternational, 168; 28 4835A. (University Microfilms No. 68-7-862)

TAYLOR; w.L. Chize procedure: a new tool for measuring readability.Journalism Quarterty,-1953,- 30-9-415433.

wxrrmEa-,.R,L.. An investigation into the effectiveness of doze :andinferential techniques upon French reading comprehension at theintermediate college level (Doctoral dissertation; University ofPittsburgh, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975, 36,3465A. (University Microfilms No. 75-28, 716)

YEMIN, D. Two instructional strategies for reading comprehensionemploying the cloze procedure (Doctoral dissertation;' ArizonaStare University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International;1978; 39; 2056A. (University Microfilms No. 78-19, 235)

Supplementary Resources on Cloze InstructionThe following :bibliography contains references which offerpractical teaching suggestions for the cloze procedure, Many ofthe ideas -contained -in __these referenceS could be readilyimplemented by classroom teachers.

ALLEN, V.F. Teaching beginning reading. Part 2: beyond sounds andletters. 'Mon Lemorim Leanglit; 1977; 18; 36-44.

m. Deuetopmental and remedial reading in the middlegrades. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1978, 349-356.

BEIL, D. The emperor's new doze. Journal of Reading; 1977; 20; 601-604.

BLACHOWICZ, C_X; _Cloze activities for primary readers. The ReadingTeacher, 1977, 31, 300=.

Supplementary Resources 35

BL ANC, R.A. Cloze-plus as an alternative to-guides -for understandingand appreciating poetry. Journalpf Reax ling; 1977; 21; 215-218.

BOND, C,VC Cloze procedure and dialect considerations. ClearingHouse-, 1977; 50;-660-362.

BORTNICK, R., & LOPARDO, G.S. The case for cloze in the clas-sworn.Paper presentd at the annual meeting of the InternationalReading Association; _New_Orleans, May 1974. (ERIC DocunientReproduction Service -Nii ED 094 327)

sorrrNttk; & LOPARDO, G.B. The doze procedure: a multi-purposeclassroom tool. Reading Improuerne-nt,:1976, 13; 113-117.

BORTNICK, R. & L &OPARDO; G. __ An instructional _application of thedoze 'procedure. Journal Of Reading, 1973,16,-296=300.

BRE-NEMAN, B. Reaction: the clw and the_ composition process. Pa,per presentecLat the annual meeting of the National Council-ofTeachers- of English, San Diego; November 1975: (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No ED 117 699)

CUNNINGHAM, J.W. An automatic pilot for decoding. The ReadingTeacher; 1979; 32;_420-424,

DISHNER, E.K. The ctoze procedure: a valuable tool for content teach,era. "Paper presented_ at the annual_ meeting of the NationalReading Conference, Houston, December 1973. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No, ED 123 602)

DUPUIS,-M. The doze procedure: can it be used with literature? Read-ing- Improvement, 1976, 13, 199-203.

GOMBERG, A.W-_ Freeing children to take a chance. The ReadingTeacher, 1976, 29, 455457.

GovE, M.K. Using:the clozeprocedure in a first grade classroom. TheReading Teacher, 1975, 29, 36:38.

GRANT; P.L. Using the doze procedure as an instructional device:what the literature says, Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe- International Reading Association; Houaton;:_May 1978:(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 155 673)

GRANT, P.L. The clozeprocedure as an instructional device. Journalof Reading; 1979; 22; 699-705: _

HAsictu,, J.F. Putting doze into the classroom. The English Record,1-975, 26, 83-90.

HELM, E.B. _Uses_of the doze procedure in elementary schools. In P.L.Nacke (Ed.) Programs and practices-far college reading (Vol. 2),Twenty,second: Yearbook of the National _Reading Conference.Boone, North Carolina: National Reading Conference, 1973.

HINES, & WARREN, J. A computerized technique -for- producingclOze material. Educational Technology; 1978; 18; 56-58:

HONEYFIEL13, Word frequency and the importance of context invocabulary learning. Regional English Language Center Journal;1977; 8 (2),35-42:

JONES, M.B., & PIKULSKI, E.C. Cloze for the classroom. Journal ofReading; 1974; 17; 432-438.

JONES, & PIKULSKI, J.J. Cloze for the content area teacher.Reading World, 1979; 18, 253-258.

36.-3 (i aoze Instruction Research

KARLOFF; K.R. __Increasing_comprehension with dozed summaries.Journal of Reading, -1977, 21,200-201.

KENNEDY; _D. - The doze procedure~ use- itito develop comprehensionskills. Instructor,- November 1974, 82-86.i

LF-Ki J.W. Increasing comprehension through-use of context clue cate-gories-. Journal of Reading; 1978; 22; 259-262.

LONG G.A. Impraving instruetion through the use-of the doze proce-.dure; JournaloftheAmerican Association of Teacher Educators inAgriculture, 19-76, 17(2), 740.

LOP_ARDO; G.S. LEA-doze:reading material for the disabled reader.The Reading Teacher, 1975, 29, 4244.

MEEKS; J.W.; & MORGAN; R.F. Classroom and the doze_ procedure:interaction in imagery. Reading Horizons, 1978, 18, 261-264.

MERRITT, :J.E. Reading: seven to -eleven, 1975. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. _ED 102 517)

MYERS,: P.C. Theelazeprocidure: latest research and uses. Paperpre-seated at the annual meeting: of_ the International_ ReadingAssociation,-- Anaheim, California:, -May 1976. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 123 556) -

NEUWIRTH, S.E. Guessing game. The Reading Teacher, 1980, 33, 591=592.

NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPT._ SPPED_cloze training manual,form 082. Albany; N.Y.: .:New York State Education Dept., Divisionof Ev-aluation :and' Division_of Research; 1976: (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No ED =12=7 =353)

PIKUISKI,_._: Using the doze technique: Language Arts; 1976; 53;317318

PI7EISTER, T. Teaching:reading comprehension to the advanced ESLstudent using the doze protedure. Regional English LanguageCentre Journal; 1973; 4(2); 31-38.

QUILLIN, H.J., & DWYER, E.J. Cloze modifications. Journal of Read-ing; 1978; 22; 200-201.:

RADICE, F.W. _Using the doze procedure as a teaching technique. Eng-lish Langua_ge Teachin_g journal, _1978, 32,20-1=204.

WAKES, Tdc.; & MCWILWatS_,_L.J_-_ _A doze placement table: Reading-InN,ravernent,-1979-,:16-31719. =

ILKNKIN, E.F. _Sequence strategies for: teaching reading comPrehen-sion-with -the-doze procedure. In P.D. Pearson & J. Hansen (Eds.),Reading: theory; research and praCtice; Twenty-sixth Yearbook ofthe National Reading Conference. Clemson; South Carolina:National Reading Conference, 1977.

SAUNDERS, -M. _e_lozing_the gaps between language skills: ExerciseExchange, 1977, 22-, 7=11.

SCHELL; Lai. _ Promisingpassibilities for improving comprehension:-Journal of Reading, 1972, 15, 415424.

SCHOELLER,A.W. "Help pupils think to learn. Instructor; January1973, 55=56.

SHERWOOD, W. Cloze procedure: a technique for weaning advancedESL students from excessive -use of the dictionary: CATESOL

Supplementary Resources 37

.1 6

occasional papers; No 2: =California Association _of _Teachers ofEn_glish- to Speakers-of Other Languages, 1975. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No ED 126 703)

SILKY, W.D. Cloze for instruction: a continuum. Journal of Reading,1979; 22; 487._

STANSELL,J.C. Instructional needs in secondary reading: an illustra-tive case study. Reading World; 1978; i$, 156-165.

THoiciAs,x.J._ Instructional applications of the doze technique. Read-ing -Wprld, 1978, 18,_ 142.

- THOMAS; k;.1.1 _Modified doze: the intralocking guide: Reading World;1979, 19, 19 =27.

TIERNEY; R.J.; READENCE; & DISHNER; E.K. Reading strategiesand practices: a guide for improving instruction. Boston: Allynand Bacon; 1980; 19-26.

Cloze BibliographiesThe following bibliographies may be useful to researchers andpraCtitioners who wish to do additional reading about the dozeprocedure:

AITKEN, K.G. TESLapplications of the cloze procedure: an annotatedbibliography. 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED109 922)

BOYCE, M-.W. A comprehensive bibliography of the doze procedure.Toorak, Australia: State College of Victoria, 1974. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service Ni.. -ED 099 830)

BOYCE, M.W. A comprehensive bibliography-Of-the-doze procedure:Part B. Toorak; Australia: State College of Victoria; 1976: (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 127 580)

SURDS; o.K. (Ed.). Uloze procedure (Ebbinghaus completion method)as applied to reading. The eighth mental measurements yearbook,Volume II. Highland Park; New Jersey: Gryphon Press; 1978; 1163-117&

MCKENNA, _M.C., & ROBINSON;RA An introduction to the clozeproce-dure: an annotated bibliography: Newark; Delaware: Internation-al Fteading Association, 1980.

RILEY; P.M. The_cloze procedure: a selejed annotated bibliography:New Guinea: Papua New Guinea University of Technology, 1973.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 106 749)

ROBINSON, R.D. An introduction to the clozg procedure: an annotatedbibliography. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Associa-tion; 1972:

38 Ctoze Instruction Research

Researcher Sample

Summary of Cloze Teaching Studies

Length of

Instructional Goal Treatnent

m.d

Aaronson (1973) Disadvantaged To increase .

college students vocabulary

OM

Criterion

Measure Fiidiiig

Not stated Student'

designed

ddie tent

and teacher.

designed

doze test

Bernath (1977) Fourth graders To increase read., Thiity

(n:238) ing comprehension minutes

Binkley (1975) Colleptudents To-increase read. One

enrolled in ing comprehension semester

German (n:1(1) of Gernin

Blackwell, et aL Third and To increase

(1972) fourth graders vocabulary

(029)

Project.

developed

doze test

and multiple.

choice test

MLA Cooper-

ative German:

Reading

Nelson.Denny

German doze

test

No significant dif

ferenceletween

types of tests

Stiifliäht differ-

e ces favoting cloze

instruction oncloze

test and multiple-

choice test

Significant gaIi s on

MLAind

no significant gains

on Nelson-Denny

Five weeks Stanford Dig- Significant differ.

mak-Reading ence favoring doze-

Test trained group

Researcher Sahiple

Burnham (1973) light classes

of college

algebra

Instructional Goal

To increase math

comprehension,

math facility,

and _general read.

ing comprehension

teii7of I Criterion

T-teatment Measure -Finding-

Eleven , Math cloze

weeks ed

English cloze

test-

Math exams in

course

Significant-differ.

trained group on math

comprehension; no

difference in general

com-prehension or mad)

facility

Clanton (1977) Sixth and To increase speli .

seventh graders ing ability

(n:194)

111=m,m1111140111.........

Three weeks _Spelling post. No significant dif.

test and week-

ly spelling

testa

ferences between

cloze.training and

regular spelling

program

Cox (1974) Disadvantaged

fourth graders

(n:71)

To-increase read. Eight weeks SRA- Achieve,

ing. comprehension /rat Test

and vocabulary in

context

No significant dif

ferences in treat.

runt; no significant

interaction bitween

treatment and reading

ability

Culhane (1972) Not stated To increase read. Not stated Not stated Teacher-led discus

ing comprehension Edon significantly

of expository better than student.

materials led discussion; sig.

nificant interaction

between scoring,

method and IQ; sig.

nificant difference

favoring doze in.

struction

Ellington (1972) Three eleventh. To increase read. Six weeks Gooperatiue

grade English ing comprehension, English Test: fe

claa8ee 081) vocabulary, and Reading

Faubion (1971) Three fourth To increase red. Two weeks Project

developed

doze tests

(lexical and

structural);

Stanford

Achievement

Test: Reading

grade daises ing comprehension

nce-between- doze

and regular instruc-

.,tion

No significant dif

ference between doze

and dAly silent

reading on SAT and

clozeitructural;

significnt diffirence

favoring cloze on

lexical test

Grant (1976) Sixth graders To increase vocabu Nine weeks

(n:42) lacy; reading en.

prehension and know

ledge of social

studies

a tes.Mtie.

Resin Test;

Project,

developed

doze lest;

Informal

SOW

studies test

No significant dif

ference doze

and

studies instruction on

vocabulary and compre-

hension; significant

difference favoring

doze on .social studies

test

Greathouse & Seventeen To-increase spell.

Neal 0976) ,clasSe.8 ,,ing of contractions

grades

through Six

(0423)

Twenty

minutes

Spelling test

of three con

tractions

Fourth to sixth

graders profited most;

no value to first

graders

14.

Researcher Sant-Pie;.%

Instraci

Greenewald High School To incr(1974) .FrentivIII ing con

tittidenti of Fren(ii.X)7'

1

Gunn & Elkin(1976)

Third graders To inching con

Guseott (1971) Sixth graders To incr(n=60) ledge 61

studiesreading

S" Houston (1976) Twelve classes To incrof disadvantaged Wry ansixth graders compre

Joh4 (1977) Twelve _classes To incrof fourth lary angraders (n =222)- compre

Researcfier Sa

kenewald

(1974)

Length of Criterion

ple Instructional Goal Treatment Measure

High School

French

'studenUi

(52C,

To increase read-

ing comprehension

of French

Gunn & Elkin Third graders To increase read.

(1976) ing comprehension

Guscott (1971) Sixth graders To increase know.

(n:60) ledge of social

studies and general

reading achievement

.!

Houston (1976)

....1,!..,Joh0 (1977)

Six Project.

sessions develo

doze testa in

English and

French

Findiiii-

No iiiifiëänt di

ferencearnong context

training, doze

training; or vocabu-

lary exercises

Eight weeks Standardized Cloze training effectiVe

st (-name in improving

ndt given) comprehension

Eight weeks Project.-

developed

social

studies doze

loiva Test- of

B-6i-c Ail:

Reading

Significant

merit on ITBS; no

significant improve-

ment in social studies

Twelve dosses . To increaae. vocabu Nine weeks Gates.Mac. No-iiinificarit-dif..

of disadvantaged lary and reading Ginitie ference-betweendoze

sixth graders. comprehension Reading Test and regular iastruc-

don in vocabulary;

significant differ,

control

group in comprehen

sion

Twelve classes To increase vocabu. Twenty.five eateslac. No significandif

of fourth lary and reading weeks Ginitie ferences in vocabu.

graders (n:222) comprehension Reading Test lary or comprehen.

sion

,

Kalmiersii Profou dly deaf To increase read Ten sessions ,Projecti No significant dif

(1973) ppatseconclary_ ing comprehension developed lento between'

students fn -6q) doze test doze and regular

instruction in corn-,

prehension

Kennedy & Below-level Toincrease.read. Five Durrell.. Significarit.differ.

Weener (1973) thigi.gra4rs ingicurapr.ehension sessions 1,:istenint. . ences.favoring doze

(n:80) and listening Reading Tilt. trained groups;

comprehension visual training more

generalizable than

auditory training

King (1974) High.School

geometry ficiency in geometry

students

To increase pro-, Not stated Standardized No significant dif

geometry Wt; Terence between

PrOjeCt. Chi and regular

developed geometry instruction

geometry. test

Martinez (1978) Middle school To increase read.

honor-students ins comprehension

(n =102) of soda! stiidies

Six weeks .Project = SignificantAiffer.

fdefielOpid eiiceS favoring close

doze test over regular reading

and convent instruction

tional com

prehension

test

McNamara (1977) High school To increase know. Seven weeks Project. No aipificant

American Govern- ledge of American developed Terence among doze;

ment students Government multiple. SQ3R, and lecture.

(n:309) thOiCe .cOh discussion

tent test

A'

Researcher

Paige (1976)

Sample

Five sev.enth.

grade social

studies classes

(ii12?)

Paradisli__. First and

Bayne (1975) second graders

(r29)

1

Length of Criterion

Instructional Goal Treatment Measure

To increase vocabu: Not stated

lary and knowledge

f. social studies

Pepin (1973) Thirty corrective

reading classes

at fourth ,; fifth.,

sixthgrades

(n:278)

To increas ead-

ing achiev ment

To increase vocabu-

lary and selected

comprehension

kill

Eight weeks

Finding

Project. No-significant dif.

developed ferenoiamyongicloze

tht of '14pproaches;. all ap .

vocabulary proaches effective

and 6-intent

Project Na significant dif

developed ference,betw_een

doze test; doze and self.

Diagnostic selected reading

eading Scales:

Word Lists;

Stanford

Achiellement

Test; Readi

Seven months California No significant di't

Achieve ent ferences among doze

test; Reading highittrest low.i

vocabolary, cloze-m;

and regular high .

interest low.vocabu-

.`41

Pessah (1975) Disadvantaged To increase vocabti .

college students lary and cornprehen.

.; (n:100) sion

.eeks NelsonDenny Significant diffel'-

ences favoring cloze

over regular and

individualized

remedial instruction

Phillips (1973)

Power (1976)

CojIge students

enrolled in :.

rrtkitittititi

Business (n:67)

Pisadvantaged

college students

(n:45)

To increase know.

ledge of business .

concepts and read .

ing skills

Fourteen Knowledge of

.weeks business- test;

NersOrf-D-eiiny

To increase: read, , Five weeks

ing Comprehension

Diagriostki

Reading Test

No significant dif-

ference among doze

and traditional

instructional

No significant dif

Terence between doze

and lecture-discus.

Rhodes (1972) Sixth graders . To increase literal; Six week S :Sianfordi... No slfict(n:153). inferential.; and ''Di,agnostir ferenCe between

total reading con Test doze.and regular

comprehension in-

struction

Rynders (1971) Sixth.graders

(n:189)

To increase read

ing comifrehension

Five weeks Gares,Mae. No-significant:If-

Ginitie rerence between

Reading Test doze and regular

comprehension in-

struction

Sampson (1979) Third. graders To increase yocabu- Fifteen

(n:92) lary, comprehension, weeks

divergent proS

cluction

P

r

Reading test;

Project.

developed

doze test;

DiVergent.

iirb-dUction

test

Significant difier.

ence favoring doze

over readingtentei

on comprehension;

no difference on

vocabulary

Length of Criterion

Researcher Sample InstructinalGool Treatment.-. Meosurk

Sinatra (977) To

secondsixth ing comprehension

graders

(n:44)

Four weio Project...

developed

clone teats

and Stanford

Diagnostic-

Reading.Test

Finding

significant. gains on

ciore test. for all

grade levels; iik

niiicant gains on

SDRT for second only

Smith (1970) Junior colleges To increase read. Not stated None given

students ing comprehension

(n not given)

Subjective evalaa.

tion.8lIpports use

of doze

Stewart (1967) Freshman

college

students

(n:91)

To increase vocabu Eight weeks Not stated

Lary, comprehension,

and total :reading

achievement

Whitmer (1975) College- students To increase read- One . .

enrolled rn ing comprehension semester

French 111' of French

(n:52)

N.A....

Cooperative

FreiCh',

No..significant .dif

feton te,beheen_

doze andcollege

reading textbook

Significant differ._

ences favoring doze.

supplemented in

struction

Yellin (1978) Four-Classes of To increase read,

faith graders ing comprehension

(n:104)

Six weeks Project. No significant dif

developed Terence: between

clone test product and process

clone

Nati: In some cases, the reviewer relied on pu

unpublished original dissertations.

ed reports, including Dissertation Abstracts International, rather than on