HOW HARD IS IT, AND HOW HARD IS TOO HARD?
Jerry Greenfield – Thailand TESOL 2006 (Handout)
Readability Formulas
1.Flesch Reading Ease (Flesch, 1948)
Reading Ease = 206.85– (1.015 x Words per Sentence)
– (84 x Syllables per 100 Words)
Note: Passage difficulty is predicted on a scale of zero Difficult) to 100 (easy).
2.Flesch-Kincaid (Kincaid, et al., 1975)
Grade Level = – 15.59 + (0.39 x Words per Sentence)
+ (11.8 x Syllables per Word)
3.Bormuth (Bormuth, 1969)
Cloze = 0.886593 – (0.03640 Letters per Word)
+ (0.161911 Familiar Words per Word)
– (0.21401 Words per Sentence)
– (0.000577 Words per Sentence2)
– (0.000005 Words per Sentence3)
4.Coleman-Liau (Coleman & Liau, 1975)
Cloze = 141.8401– (0.214590 Letters per 100 Words)
+ (1.079812 Sentences per 100 Words)
Grade level = 23.06395– (27.4004 Estimated Cloze)
5.New Dale-Chall (Chall & Dale. 1995)
Cloze = 64 – (0.95 Non-Dale-List Words)
– (0.69 Average Sentence Length)
Note: Cloze can be converted to reading level via a lookup table.
6.Brown EFL Difficulty Estimate (Brown, 1998)
EFL Difficulty = 38.7469 + (.7823 x Syllables per Sentence)
+ (-126.1770 x Passage Frequency)
+ (1.2878 x % Long Words)
+ (.7596 x % Function Words)
Note: Passage difficulty is predicted on a scale of zero to 100.
8.Miyazaki EFL Readability Index (Greenfield, 1999)
EFL Difficulty = 164.935 – (18.792 x Letters per Word)
– (1.916 x Words per Sentence)
Note: Passage difficulty is predicted on a scale of zero to 100.
Performance Research Summary
Study 1
Readers: 200 students (90 first-yr, 73 second-yr, 24 third-yr, 13 fourth-yr)
Passage Set: 31 texts from Bormuth (1971), 1st to 15th grade (on Flesch-Kincaid)
Procedure: Cloze testing and questionnaire on difficulty rating
Results:
Observed Mean Cloze Score: 24.25%
Mean Difficulty Rating (1=easy, 2=about right, 3=difficult): 2.19
Cloze Score Associated with a 2 Rating: 32%
Study 2
Readers: 257 students (132 first-yr, 51 second-yr, 61 third-yr, 13 fourth-yr)
Passage Set: 3 academic texts selected to span the middle difficulty range identified in Study 1
Procedure: Cloze testing and questionnaire of difficulty rating
Results: Difficulty Rating: (1=too easy 2=somewhat easy 3=about right 4=somewhat hard 5=too hard)
Study 3
Passage Set: 40 representative academic texts used successfully in MIC 1st through 4th year liberal arts courses
Procedure: Readability analyses by Flesch, Flesch-Kincaid, and Miyazaki formulas
Results
First-Second Year Texts (N=19)
Flesch Reading Ease 59 (range 77 - 33)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 8.6 (range 6.3 – 12)
Miyazaki Index 49 (range 59 – 29)
Predicted Cloze 24% (range 30 – 10)
Third-Fourth Year Texts (N=21)
Flesch Reading Ease 48 (range 62 - 30)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 11 (range 8.7 – 12+)
Miyazaki Index 36 (range 48 – 21)
Predicted Cloze 15% (range 23% – 6%)
Bibliography
Betts, E.A. (1957). Foundations of reading instruction, with emphasis on differentiated guidance. New York: American Book.
Bormuth, J. R. (1967). Comparable cloze scores and multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Journal of Reading, 10, 291-299.
Bormuth, J. (1968). Cloze readability criterion reference scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 189-196.
Bormuth, J. R. (1969). Development of readability analyses (Final Report, Project No. 7-0052, Contract No. 1,
Bormuth, J. R. (1971). Development of standards of readability: Toward a rational criterion of passage performance. U. S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare (ERIC Doc. No. ED O54 233).
Brown, J. D. (1998). An EFL readability index. JALT Journal, 29 (2), 7-36.
Chall, J. (1988). The beginning years. In B. L. Zakaluk & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, present, and future (pp. 2-13). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Chall, J. & Conard, S (1991). Should textbooks challenge students: The case for easier or harder books. New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
Chall, J. & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The New Dale‑Chall Readability Formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Coleman, M., & Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 283-284.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221‑233.
Fry, E. (1989). Reading formulas: Maligned but valid. Journal of Reading, 32, 292-297.
Greenfield, G. (1999). Classic Readability Formulas in an EFL Context: Are They Valid for Japanese Speakers? Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1999. (University Microfilms No. 99-38670)
Greenfield, G. (2003). The Miyazaki EFL Readability Index. Comparative Culture 9, 41-49. Miyazaki International College.
Greenfield, G. (2004). Readability Formulas for EFL. JALT Journal 26 (1), 5-24.
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8‑75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station Memphis.
Klare, G. R. (1988). The formative years. In B. L. Zakaluk & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, present, and future (pp. 14-34). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Tinker, M.A. (1965). Bases for Effective Reading. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.