Readability formulas: An analysis into reading index of prose forms

Revathi Gopal, Mahendran Maniam, Noor Alhusna Madzlan, Siti Shuhaida binti Shukor, Kanmani Neelamegam

Abstract


Text comprehension will suffer if the readability level is not accessible to the students. Readability formulas predict text complexity, assisting in appropriate text selection that complements students’ reading abilities to improve their language development. Therefore, the study aims to find out the reading index of the prose forms in the literature component catered to lower secondary school students ages 13 and 14 years old in Form One (seventh grade) and Form Two (eighth grade) classrooms in Malaysia. The reading index is measured by using four readability formulas which are Dale-Chall, Fog, SMOG, and Flesch-Kincaid that focuses on the words, sentences, syllables, and polysyllable words. These formulas are used to predict the level of difficulty of the prose forms. The reading index calculated from these readability formulas reveals the grade level of the prose forms. The grade level indicates the best age for reading and understanding the prose forms. Two prose forms were chosen as samples in the study. A passage is chosen from each prose form to be uploaded using the online tool. The indices obtained from the readability formulas predicted that both of the prose forms were below students’ reading age. The study implicates reading index must be taken into consideration in literary texts selection because it is an indicator of the years of education that an individual requires to comprehend the literary text clearly. Suitable reading material at students’ age level can enhance literature learning and teaching in the ESL classroom.


Keywords


ESL classroom; readability formulas; readability index; text difficulty

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdullah, I. H., & Hashim, R. S. (2007). Readability analysis of Malaysian short stories in English. Jurnal e-Bangi, 2(2), 1-11.

Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication, 21(3), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00005-2

Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2016). Readability: Text and content. Macmillan.

Brown, J. D., Janssen, G., Trace, J., & Liudmila, K. (2012). A preliminary study of cloze procedure as a tool for estimating English readability for Russian students. Second Language Studies, 31(1), 1-22.

Byram, M. (2014). Twenty-five years on-from cultural studies to intercultural citizenship. Language Culture and Curriculum, 27(3), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.974329

Carrell, P. (1987). Readability in ESL. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4, 21-40.

Chin, E. (1994). Redefining “context” in research on writing. Written Communication, 11, 445-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088394011004002

Crossley, S. A., Skalicky, S., & Dascalu, M. (2019). Moving beyond classic readability formulas: New methods and new models. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(3-4), 541- 561. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12283

Dale, E. & Chall, J. S. (1949). The concept of readability. Elementary English XXVI(1), 19-26.

Dale, E. & Chall, J. S. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge.

Dass, R., Chapman, A. & O’Neill, M. (2012). Literature in English: How students in Singapore secondary schools deal with the subject. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 8(2), 1-20.

Davison, A. & Bolt, B. (1981). Readability: Appraising text difficulty [Reading education report No. 24]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED208340.pdf

Doak, L. G., & Doak, C. C. (2010). Writing for readers with a wide range of reading skills. American Medical Writers Association Journal, 25(4), 149-154.

DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Impact Information.

Goodman, K. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5(1), 9-30.

Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill.

Hamid, A. R. A., Hashim, M. F., Hasan, N. A., & Azhan, N. M. (2020) Readability of COVID-19 information by the Malaysian Ministry of Health. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 5(2), 170-191. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol5iss2pp170-191

Hargis, G. (2000). Readability and computer documentation. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 122-131. https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344634

Harrison, C. (1980). Readability in the classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Harrison, C. (1984). Readability in the United Kingdom. Journal of Reading, 29(6), 521-529.

Heydari, P., & Riazi, M. A. (2012). Readability of texts: Human evaluation versus computer index. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 177-190.

Ismail, A., Yusof, N. & Yunus, K. (2016). The readability of Malaysian English children’s books: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(6), 214. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.6p.214

Janan, D. (2011). Towards a new model of readability [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Warwick.

Kassim. R. (2010). Literacy through children’s literature: A Malaysian perspective. Malaysian Journal of Media Studies, 12(2), 1-9.

Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., 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, Chief of Naval Technical Training]. Naval Air Station Memphis.

Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Iowa State University Press.

Klare, G. R. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulas. Journal of Reading Behavior, 8(2),129-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967609547171

Kondru, J. (2006). Using part of speech structure of text in the prediction of its readability [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Texas.

McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 22, 639-664.

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M. & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564

Nor, A. K. M. (1997). Understandability of chairman’s address in annual reports: A Malaysian context [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Oakland, T., & Lane, H. B. (2004). Language, reading, and readability formulas: Implications for developing and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 4(3), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0403_3

Owu-Ewie, C. (2014). Readability of comprehension passages in Junior High School (JHS) English textbooks in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 35-68. https://www.doi.org/10.4314/gjl.v3i2.3

Pikulski, J. (2002). Readability: A definition. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rahmawati, Y. I., & Lestari, L. A. (2014). The readability of reading texts in the English textbooks used by tenth grade students [Unpublished bachelor’s thesis]. State University of Surabaya.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text and the poem. Southern Illinois University Press.

Schultz. R. A. (1981). Literature and readability: Bridging the gap in foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 65(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1981.tb00952.x

Srisunakrua, T. & Chumworatayee, T. (2019). Readability of reading passages in English textbooks and the Thai National Education English test: A comparative study. Arab World English Journal, 10 (2), 257-269. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3418124

Tabatabaei, E., & Bagheri, M. S. (2013). Readability of reading comprehension texts in Iranian senior high schools regarding students’ background knowledge and interest. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 1028-1035. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.5.1028-1035

Vučković, D. (2017, March 30-31). Literature as a core of integrated curriculum [Paper presentation]. The 5th International Conference, Kolegji Universitar Bedër, Tirana, Albania.

Zamanian, M., & Heydari, P. (2012). Readability of texts: State of the art. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(1), 43-53.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.20373

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.