Northwest Center for Holocaust, Genocide and Ethnocide Education
Readability Analysis Tools 1
Readability
Tools Used
In This
Readability
Evaluation:
Fry
Readability
Formula (FRF)
This widely used readability formula estimates grade reading levels from grade 1 to grade 17. This formula compares sentence length and number or syllables in three sample passages of 100 words each. If a text is charted on the Fry Readability Graph with a score of "9" then the readability of the text is at an 8th-10th grade level. (See Figure 1 for results using this assessment tool)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document |
Subject |
Mean Syllable Count |
Mean Sentence Count |
Fry Readability (Grade Level) |
|
1 |
A Letter to President Truman from the Brother of Raoul Wallenberg |
179.4 |
2.9 |
15th to 17th+ |
|
2 |
Alex and Mela Roslan |
136.5 |
7.1 |
5th to 8th |
|
3 |
Survivor Testimonies |
152.0 |
6.5 |
8th to 10th |
|
4 |
Rescuer Testimonies |
152.7 |
7.1 |
7th to 9th |
|
5 |
The Enigma of the Righteous Persons |
176.2 |
5.2 |
14th to 17th+ |
|
6 |
Flight and Rescue |
146.5 |
6.2 |
7th to 9th |
|
7 |
"Sweden Offers Aid to Denmark's Jews" New York Time Article |
162.7 |
3.1 |
12th to 14th |
|
8 |
Help To Jews From "Zegota" in Poland |
166.5 |
3.3 |
13th to 15th |
|
9 |
Flight from Denmark to Sweden by Boat |
135.2 |
6.1 |
6th to 8th |
|
10 |
A Letter to Raoul Wallenberg from J.W. Pehle |
178.3 |
4.7 |
15th to 17th+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary of Readability |
|
|
|
|
|
Lowest |
6th to 8th |
|
|
|
|
Highest |
15th to 17th+ |
|
|
|
|
"Average" |
9th to 12th |
Fry Readability is a formulaic numerical assessment of reading materials.
Advantages of using the Fry Scale
• Formulas are very objective-standardized
• Measures sentence and vocabulary difficulty
• Ease to repeat and easy to perform
• Can be performed without evaluator biases of the text
Disadvantages
of Fry
•
Does not
consider
student
background
knowledge
•
Does not
consider the
context of
the material
•
Is not
subjective
•
Uses only
samples, not
full text
•
Formula can
be skewed by
large
numerals in
the text
Marshall's Readability Checklist for Comprehensibility
This checklist looks for features of the text that a readability formula does not reveal. Unlike formulae, the data is subjective. Hence, specific, readability scores are not provided. Instead, the evaluator answers "Well Done", "Average" or "Poor" to questions under the following categories: Main Ideas, Vocabulary, Concepts, Related Ideas, Referents, Audience. (See Figure 2 for results using this assessment tool.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Document Number |
|||||||||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
||
|
Main Ideas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Are major points stated clearly? |
Good |
Good |
Avg |
Good |
Poor |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Avg |
Good |
||
|
Are chapter titles and headings meaningful? |
N/A |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Avg |
Avg/ |
||
|
Do titles outline major points clearly? |
N/A |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Good |
Avg |
Poor/ Avg |
Avg |
Avg/ |
||
|
Vocabulary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Are key vocabulary terms defined clearly when the subject is new? |
Poor |
Avg |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
||
|
Are there terms used in a variety of contexts meaningful to the reader? |
Poor |
Avg |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
||
|
Concepts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Are new concepts introduced in the context of familiar concepts? |
N/A |
Avg |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
Poor |
Avg |
N/A |
||
|
Are they well-defined within the text? |
Poor |
Avg |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
||
|
Related Ideas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Are ideas clearly related to each other? |
Avg |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Good |
Avg/ |
||
|
Will the reader be able to understand relationships among ideas? |
Avg/ Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Good |
Avg/ |
||
|
Could the reader illustrate these graphically? |
Avg |
Avg |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
Poor |
Avg |
Poor |
||
|
Referents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Are pronouns used unambiguously? |
Poor |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Good |
Poor |
Poor |
Good |
Avg |
||
|
Do they usually refer to referents no more than one sentence away? |
Poor |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Good |
Poor |
Avg |
Good |
Avg |
||
|
Audience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Has the author addressed the audience intended? |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Poor |
Good |
N/A |
N/A |
Avg |
Avg |
||
The Marshal readability checklist is used to subjectively analyze texts. The results augment formulaic assessment and student feedback in effectively determining the readability of materials.
Adapted from Tonjes, M., and Wolpow, R., Integrated Content Literacy, McGraw Hill, 1999, p. 139
Contents
Introduction
Definition of Readability
Description of Readability Tools Used
Figure 1-Fry Readability Analysis of Documents
Figure 2-Marshall’s Readability Checklist of Documents
Importance of Triangulation
Triangulation Figure 3
Evaluation Results and Suggestions
Instructional Tools
Sample Summary
Sample Vocabulary List
Figure 4-Sample Gloss
Figure 5-Sample Reading Guide
Bibliography
