The determination of criteria of readability

132 Pages·08.792 MB·English

by  Kershner, Alan Motter

cHimu a?
rm zzrm iM n m of m k o m iin
by
Alan M.;'' lershner
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of the University of Maryland la partial
fulfillm ent of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy
1951
UMI Number: DP70428
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
U M I
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP70428
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
I *
l
i
v
i
C
1
«
1 S
« I I
y
a
w, 3 «iPf
a
ml !
M
5 !«
* «•
f
t
«r r
b
&l ** ■< I ^
t
Mr. CD
1 I
to CD
H

&| 1 i
1
le 1
r
® K
e
t
5
of I t#* i*
ae 1
y s
t
i i l l
n
r s
t
v
i
R I I
f T* «
I
I I
i
e
li 1
a
ii I I **
t
a
C I 4
I I i 1 !
m
m
e *
I
i
o
n
*
s. x*
* I
§
*g
I
I
m
p
0
4
I
sc
i f
g
I
h
i f
ie
tails of co ran s
CHAPT&a 1 m FM UR 1
Introduction « « • * « « * * * « • • • * « , , , , • * • 1
SaMaary of delated InveeiigaUoos . * ♦ • ......................... 3
CrttertonAspeeteRelated to Readability , - *■ . . . U
fit* Purpose of Thl« Investigation 14
oiuraft n fhs u rn m .. 14
Selection sad Pairing #f Readlag Materials 16
Sailing Pisa • If
Hie Deteradnation of Reading Time 30
Interview Procedure * • * ' • * * « * * » • • • * • * • 33
Collection of Pete 25
6@SBM9its on Method * • • « * • • * • • • • • • « * * • 34
cHAFtai i n a im ra m m swm im m
Selection of Criterion Reading Passages........................ , 33
Analysis of .heading P assages......................... * If
Predictor Differentiation between
wlar3ff sad **$a«y» Passages . . . . . ..............................41
General Dlscusslm • • * • • • • » • * • « • « • * « 44
Xaplisatietis for Patsre fleeeareti # • • • • * . « • * • 4f
CHAP THE if 3UNKASX A© COSCUI8XQilS 51
asfjqrfiBi BIBLlO^APHT
I I
V
u n a o u i J6
Tdimtli jft aif | SnA
fM jr 3«a«ii » • * « # » * • .................* » • * • * 5?
Biwutf ng Piw i yiMi * # # # ■ « # * • # # # * • * * # ♦ # * # JPP
7
AFPISDIX XX ?6
hriXJoiaftiy i roo«dur« % , . « . * . . . . * * * * * * * ff
D**criptl*a of Silent Reearder * ♦ f#
Pfoei&i£f*s$ii ef ft— ftljMp**** • « # * • • * * * • » • • «X£dl
eaapoaita Distribution »f CoavsrUd
tosding tin* . • . 105
xrriiBix m 206
Constants Used to giffltatift iissdXiiii TXshwi end
rrediotor-V&rlablsa Dots t* 2,006 fyym IpiiM , * • ypf
fmmgm Fairings, Actual and H oafiftii Esading
Unss, Adiftd **y* OafflEVwrtwsi SsadXag XJjwwi • * • • * 10d
WF®®M If m
FrecH ((%fn*—¥%rl a Data X9x* Saak ttw tt if
• * * . xai
n
i m m m m
fafe&a lft»« Pa§a
I Swigad Difficulty mA MattU* Wm
fm wm m t** fey $#* *0a*>«* Gfcwip * • • * « 30
XI thaigad lifficulfy and Halaflr* fta* Pr*f**o*ioioa
by raira for "taw* Oaaa* group • * * * » » . 31
f$%*M ISdaMMfciMua I ^ 4Bftlk%aaafeat
'MA v»* Py wiip V90H * wWttWPBP wwWMI 4MPV IWPfll mKmm
f*lP mi botoNMNi Xof *■** faa Pal?
EoUflva tta»
•liawte# CUuu* k * * * * * * ' . *14
•Oi^ar^O ana ^99 TO'^Wjg^apP 9 9 9 9 * w w w 9 W ™ w 9 9 90*^91
If Mooa Baadifsg ?is» la Saoacnia fey Palta
Caarafad feo 2,000 fypa $paaa* * » • « • * * • ||
f K«&1m* .loading flat la Soaeala Ooararfai
2,000 fgpo %aao* • » • « * * • * • • • • • |4
fa
fl jt, oaci p f&Xaoa fog* "liarci*' *8afy*
Paaaagaa for Maah Praaiafor fjMrXatela • 40
SarcH^ptlar OorrilMifXaBa feafeicafci Pratlofor
f ix
farlafelaa * • *% * * • * • * • * • « • • « * * 41
H U f*pi4iafadi folttoa for an lamf f ag faaaagaa • • * 44
Til
U 3T Of FZQUE&9
Figure f*o» Pago
1 Scale Values................................................. . . « . 17
S Distribution of Frodletod Values
tor Criterion Paaoago# . . . ...................... . . . 4$
3 Distribution of fredietod Values for
Faaaaga# Shoeing Criteria "Ineonoisiefiejr11« . . 45
4 Distribution of Frodioted ?al»o« far
Passages in. tbe KCeater#* of the
Criteria Continue . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . 45
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
ieseareh In the field of reeding has two nain Imt related facets:
(1) reading ability of Individuals and (2) readability of the materials.
Studies of the former first attracted investigators over a hundred
years age (1$i2)j they mother la the lbomatd«# embracing aspects of
intelligence, education, environment, and interest and purpose la
reading (£$} as well as reading habit*. In contrast are studies of
readability which ntmber about a hundred and have been made chiefly in
tbs last thirty years*
the meaning of "readability” nay soon so obvious as to require
no definition} nevertheless, it needs some consideration. At the
Readability Laboratory at Teachers’ College, Bryson reports that to
obtain a sketchy notion of the readability of a piece of prose for the
average person, it was examined for "lucidity, *" comprehensibility, ** and
"appeal” (3)* 3noh a definition is, of course, not helpful in an
empirical or experimental Investigation because each of three terns is
as difficult of definition as is readability. Flesch deals with the
subject by posing a question and answering it as followss »What is
reading comprehension? At tbs strictly operational level, the answer
1st leading comprehension is the capacity to answer correctly the
questions in a reading comprehension test* ’Readable, 1 fro* this point
of view, is a text that w ill evoke a large number of oorrret comprehension
®t& csr ®qo boob

®
?!# A«s roo
a® o^« pon
o^ I ti s®
od poo *,
a
tuto i dfc© r if ro
® od
jo *|a
r* I ®oe by
p #
o *c> a
I o g
%» p* iv
a o
p u
f o
9j ? Jtoift gro
o u
p. p
m
'4I of
o
o r
ftou o E#if* oodo
t r
f *% p o
p s r *
8 oi
9*} * ! E i wt« (12
9p ►% «o :9
A ) >
® 1 .
X 9
de I * H
% ? o
5
&a (
I