Reading Comprehension Theoretical Description 1. The Concept of Reading

16 Klare, 1984. There are two kinds of test from this method. They are cloze procedure and comprehension test. Cloze procedure typically involves a passage which standard-length blanks replace every nth word. The common application is called a deletion ratio of 1:5 or an every-fifth deletion ratio Klare, 1984. Klare also adds that this kind of procedure offers advantages in time and effort than developing a multiple-choice test. One major advantage that he underlines is that the cloze procedure consists of text. Although the deletion of nth ratio has been commonly applied, cloze procedure has been the subject of criticisms. Klare 1984 mentions: a. It cannot measure all the kinds of comprehension skills which comprehension tests can. b. The results of the test may depend on general knowledge of language rather than on special knowledge about the text. c. It may depend on short range constraints. Shanahan, Kamil, and Tobin 1982 in Binkley 1988 also criticize this standard cloze procedure. They concluded the standard cloze procedure might be limited in measuring the integration of intersentential information. This problem is also conveyed by Harrison 1994 who states ‘scrambling the sentence order of a text has only a small effect on cloze scores, but has been found to seriously disrupt recall and comprehension.’ In contrast to the standard cloze procedure which raises doubts among researchers, Binkley 1988 offers other considerations. He develops cloze 17 procedure which includes cohesive structure ties in a text. The deletions are made to be specific to particular cohesive ties item such as reference he, that, there, substitution one, same, do so, ellipsis, conjunction and, or, later, and lexical, which is related to the topic kayak, boat. However, the scoring system is different from the standard cloze procedure, which counts exact words as correct answers. Students’ answers then classified and analyzed based on the group of answers. The writer used a guidance of analyzing the students’ responses suggested by Chapman 1983 as it was quoted by Binkley 1988. Later on, this guidance was adapted to make it more manageable. This system allocated students’ responses into some response position or a continuum from inappropriate to syntactically correct to syntactically and semantically correct. In this system, student responses to the cloze procedure are reported with a count of how many students chose each type of response. Binkley 1988 reprinted the summary of criteria in allocating students’ responses table with Chapman’s 1983 permission. The table can be seen below. Table 2.1 Summary of Criteria for Allocating Responses Position 1 P1 Pre-reading  Omissions  Unrecognizable responses  Response unacceptable P1 Transition response is partially acceptable  Achieved by ignoring other words in a clause  Achieved by overrunning punctuation Position 2 P2 Beginning Reading clause structure perceived  Word complex responses-acceptable in one clause element only all other contexts are ignored  Group complex responses-acceptable in clause complex but lacking evidence of cohesion and register  Clause complex responses-acceptable in clause complex but lacking