Cloze Exercises¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (1 for, 1 mixed) · 5 studies (3 review, 1 causal, 1 theoretical), q1–q3 · 0 of 5 report an effect size

Description¶

A cloze exercise presents a passage in which words (every nth word, or selected content/function words) have been deleted; learners supply the missing items using contextual, syntactic, and semantic cues. Originally developed by Wilson Taylor (1953) as a readability measure, cloze was adapted for instruction because the act of reconstructing deleted text forces learners to process meaning rather than decode passively.

Design Implications¶

Cloze tasks convert reading from passive reception into generative retrieval: learners must activate prior knowledge, use sentence context, and monitor whether a candidate word fits grammatically and semantically. This generative demand is the mechanism of benefit — reconstruction requires deeper processing than rereading. Deletion design matters: random every-nth-word deletion targets general text processing, while rational deletion (removing targeted vocabulary, connectives, or grammatical structures) targets specific learning goals.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A passage at an appropriate difficulty level — if too many words are unknown, contextual inference collapses
• A principled deletion scheme: systematic (every 5th–10th word) for general comprehension, or rational deletion targeting vocabulary, conjunctions, or structures
• An answer key or acceptable-synonym policy, since many blanks admit multiple valid responses
• Feedback that distinguishes plausible-but-wrong from correct completions

Constraints¶

• With unfamiliar texts or excessive deletion density, learners guess rather than infer, and the exercise degrades into a vocabulary test [~M]
• Cloze measures and trains local, sentence-level processing more than global discourse skills; overreliance can narrow reading instruction toward word-level puzzle solving [-M]
• Scoring is ambiguous when multiple completions are semantically valid; strict exact-word scoring underestimates comprehension [~M]
• Less effective for learners still decoding at the word level — the added production load can overwhelm limited working memory resources Chunking reduces working memory load. [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Maze format: each blank offers 3–4 choices instead of free recall — easier to score, lower production demand, suitable for younger or struggling readers
• Rational cloze: delete only targeted categories (e.g., connectives, verb forms) to focus attention on discourse structure or grammar
• Oral cloze: teacher reads aloud, class supplies words — builds listening comprehension and engagement
• Collaborative cloze: pairs negotiate completions, adding discussion and justification of choices

Target Learners¶

• Second-language learners developing contextual inference and automatic word recognition Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension. [+M]
• Developing readers who need practice integrating sentence-level cues
• Struggling readers benefit most from the maze variant; free-recall cloze suits more proficient readers [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension: constructing meaning from incomplete input
• Vocabulary acquisition: inferring and retrieving word meanings in context
• Grammatical/syntactic sensitivity: recognizing which word classes fit which slots
• Assessment: cloze scores correlate with general reading proficiency, so the format doubles as a diagnostic

Instructions¶

1. Select or write a passage at the learners' instructional reading level.
2. Choose a deletion scheme — systematic for general practice, rational deletion for targeted goals (vocabulary, connectives, structures).
3. Prepare the gapped text, keeping the first and last sentences intact to establish context.
4. Model the inference process on one or two blanks, thinking aloud about the cues used (see Think-Aloud if available).
5. Have learners complete the exercise individually or in pairs.
6. Review answers, accepting justified synonyms, and discuss why each completion fits — the discussion, not just the completion, drives learning.

Related Strategies¶

• Maze/Cloze Assessments — the multiple-choice variant used for screening and progress monitoring
• Vocabulary in Context — cloze as a vocabulary-learning vehicle
• Reading Fluency Practice — complementary oral-reading work; cloze addresses the comprehension side

Examples¶

• Maze CBM screening — Curriculum-based measurement (e.g., AIMSweb, FastBridge) uses 3-choice maze passages to monitor reading progress in grades 1–8 several times per year.
• ESL coursebooks — Published ELT materials (e.g., Cambridge's Touchstone series) routinely include rational-cloze tasks targeting target grammar and vocabulary from each unit.
• Newsela / ReadWorks — Adapted-article platforms pair leveled texts with fill-in and comprehension activities that include cloze-style items tied to key vocabulary.

Key Sources¶

• Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30(4), 415–433. doi:10.1177/107769905303000401
• Oller, J. W., & Jonz, J. (Eds.). (1994). Cloze and coherence. Bucknell University Press.
• Barnett, M. A. (1982). Some can-strategies and success in the ESL cloze test. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 65–71.
• Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524759
• Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Determining adequate yearly progress from kindergarten through grade 6 with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(4), 25-37. doi:10.1177/073724770402900405