Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
r世界の日本語教育」 4,1994年 6月
Is the Reading Co斑prehe盟sio阻 Performanceof Learners of Japa目eseas a Second Language the Same as That of Japanese Children? A阻 AnalysisUsing a Cloze Test
Sayoko Okada Yamashita*
Key words: reading comprehension, native first graders, Japanese as a second language (JSL) learners, cloze test, item analysis
This study investigates whether there are differences in reading comprehension performance between native Japanese children and learners of Japanese as a second language (JSL). The subjects were public elementary皿 school五rstgraders (n=43), as well as advanced (n=29) and intermediate (n=31) university students who were studying JSL. A五xed”ratiocloze test with 72 blanks (adapt-ed from a folk tale, entitled Momotaro) was used to measure comprehension performance. The statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and item analysis. One-way analysis of variance (ANOV A) indicated that there was a signi五cantdifference between native children and lower pro四
五ciencyJSL learners, although, there was no significant difference between na-tive children and higher pro五ciencyJSL learners. However, closer analysis indicated several salient differences between native children and advanced JSL learners. This study demonstrates that the more pro五cientJSL learners bか
come, the closer their pro五ciencybecomes to having native pro五ciency. In addition, the cloze procedure appears to have been a good measure of the larトguage knowledge of both native children and JSL learners and also helped to discover individual items that are di伍cultfor JSL learners to master.
INTRODUCTION
The五nalgoal for second/foreign language learners in learning a target language is to
master it with native-like pro五ciency(ACTFL, 1986). If the above assumption is true, advanced second/foreign language learners should perform as well as native
speakers on a test that measures their language ability.
Cloze tests, in which subjects五11in words that have been deleted from a reading
selection, were五rstused by Taylor (1953) to assess the readability of texts. A num圃
＊ 山下早代子： Lecturer, International Christian University, Japan.
[ I 3 3 ]
134 世界の日本語教育
ber of studies have been done on the effectiveness of doze as a measure of reading pro圃
五ciencyfor native speakers of E時 lish(Bormuth, 1965; Miller and Colema町 1967;
Shiba, 1957; Taylor, 1957). Later, extensive studies utilizing doze in testing ESL students were reported (for overviews of this research, see Oller, 1979; Hinofotis, 1987). Chihara et al. (1977) studied native speakers and ESL students, using a doze procedure （五xed-ratiodeletion), and found that the percent of correct closures (i.e., correct answers written in the bla出s)was higher for groups with higher language proficiency than for groups with lower pro五ciency. In other words, the Chihara et al. study demonstrated that the native speakers and the advanced learners did equally well on the doze test compared with lower pro五ciencylearners.
Alderson (1980) also reported on a study comparing the performances of native speakers of English with those of non-native speakers. Native and norトnativespeakers performed similarly on a number of doze tests that the researcher constructed by ma-
nipulating variables in the doze test design. Among the research issues raised about doze tests in the literature, two stand out as
particularly relevant to this study. One is the argument about what doze really assess掴
es. One group of researchers argues that doze test items are primarily assessing
sentence占 velIi時 uisticelements (Alderson, 1979; Klein-Brale）ら 1983; Markham 1985; Porter, 1983). Another group五ndsthat doze is a stable, reliable, and sensitive
measure of the inter-sentential components of the language (Bachr 1983 ; Chavez四 Oller,Chihara’Weaver, and Oller, 1985; Jonz, 1987, 1990). This researcher was concerned about which position to take. For instance, Jonz’s (1990) claim that his analysis of the passage from Bachman (1985) in terms of categorization (inter-sentential analysis) did not match Bachman’s analysis for 14 doze deletions out
of 30. Even if the claim of the latter group is true (i.e., that doze is sensitive to i凶 er皿
sentential components of the langl時 e), the issues seem to be very complicated. Prob皿
ably, as Brown (1991) stated, doze items assess a wide range of la時uagepoints from
morphemic and clausal level grammar rules to discourse and pragmatic level rules of cohesion and coherence (p. 2). This researcher shall mainly deal with, morphemic and clausal level grammar rules in order to make the analysis simple and clear. Another cloze research issue deals with types of doze procedure. Researchers have
studied the reliability, validity, mean item facility and discrimination, and usability of
various types of scoring methods (Bachman, 1985; Brown, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992; Chapelle and Abraham, 1990; Darnell, 1970; Feldmann and Stemmer, 1987; Jonz,
1976; KleirトBraley,1985; Markhar町 1985;Shin, 1990). In addition, there are many types of doze procedures, such as五xed回 ratio,rational deletions, multiple-choice, dozen岡
trophy, and C-test. Among scoring methods, even the五xed聞 ratioand rational dele圃
tion methods have two scoring choices, namely, exact皿 wordscoring and acceptable田
word scoring methods.
In the present study, fixed-ratio deletions were applied to measure language traits, more speci五cally,written grammatical and textual reading competence (a白erChapelle and Abraham, 1990). The acceptable四 wordscoring method was used after Brown
(1980) with pilot耐 testresults which were obtained from native university students in
Reading Comprehension Performance 135
order to compile a glossary of acceptable answers for each blank. The scoring method will be described in detail in the Procedures section of this paper. The purpose of this study, then, was to compare native Japanese childrens' reading
comprehension performance to adult learners of Japanese as a second language (JSL) using a doze test that was specially developed for this study. In other words, this study investigated whether there is a difference in reading comprehension performance between native Japanese五rstgraders and learners of Japanese as a second language ( advanced and intermediate levels) by using a doze procedure as the measurement instrument. To that end, more speci五cresearch questions were formulated as follows:
1) Is the doze test reliable for each group (the五rstgraders, advanced JSL learn-ers, and i川 ermediateJSL learners)?
2) What are the item facilities and discrimination indices for the五rstgraders, advanced JSL learners, and intermediate JSL learners' performance?
3) Which items discriminate between JSL learners and native Japanese children? 4) Is there a signi五cantdifference in performance between JSL learners and
native children?
Method
Subjects The subjects in this study were: 1) a group of native五rstgraders ( aged 6 to 7) in a public elementary school in Musashino City, Tokyo (n=43); 2) a group of university students in the advanced JSL level at International Christian University (ICU) (n= 29); and 3) a group of university students in the i凶 ermediateJSL level (n=31) at ICU. They were all sampled as intact classes. The test for the五rstgraders was administered at the end of the school year, which was in March in the Japanese school calendar. It was the time when the children had completed all of their work for the五rstgrade. The JSL subjects were predominantly American. The number of years of Japanese study for the advanced students varied from 2 to 5 years, and they had studied it with varying degrees of intensity. The intermediate level in this study was the level in which the students had just五nishedstudying the grammar and structure of beginning
level Japanese. The levels were determined by a placement test administered at the beginning of the school year, which was September for the JSL groups. The same doze test was also administered to 33 native Japanese university students
as a pilot test to compile a glossary of acceptable answers.
Materials A doze test with every ninth character deleted was designed from an old folk tale for
children, entitled “IV!omotaro”（“Peach Boy ”）， taken from Yamashita and Ogawa
(1994). The story is well known to native Japanese. All 33 Japanese university stu四
dents indicated (when asked) that they knew the story after completing the pilot test,
and 40 out of 43五rstgraders indicated that the doze test was about "Momotaro.＇’ This particular story was selected because it is familiar to children, and also because
136 世界の日本語教育
it deals with cultural knowledge, which may play an important role in measuring aι vanced JSL learners' proficiency.
The method of deleting every ninth character (including kanji) was applied to this test.
Ogawa (1992) deleted every seventh character for two doze tests for a JSL placement
test (based on the literature). In that study, one doze passage was taken from an intermediate JSL text and another was taken from an authentic newspaper article.
Both passages made extensive use of kanji, which carries meaning in most nouns and
stems of verbs. Since the text in this study was written mostly in hiragana, syllabic characters, it was necessary to have more characters between deletions in order to carry
morphological meanings. Thus, the system of deleting every ninth character was
used. A typical doze test has several sentences intact at the beginning of the passage to
provide context (Hinofotis, 1987; 413). In this study, however, the五rstbla出 ap圃
?eared at the ninth character. Since in any passage starting with “Mukashi mukashi，＇’ it is obvious to native speakers and advanced learners (if they have native叩 eakerpro田
五ciency)that“［α］rutokoroni" follows. In order to keep the blanks uniform througlトout, commas, periods, and parentheses were treated as characters. The test was writ帽
ten in hiragana characters and kanii were limited to those taught to first graders ac四
cording to the Monbusho (Ministry of Education) ka吋1list for elementary students. The五rstparagraph was as follows (see Appendix A for the complete test and accept田
able answers. The original text was written in hiragana and kanji; the test was not
given in Roman characters as shown in the example below):
Mukαshimukashi, ［」4]rutokoro叫ojiVJsantoobααSαn[GA] s仰 deimashitα（．）Ojii
mαshitα ． * NI CHI is a ka吋i.
The total number of blanks was 72, including recursive words.1 The grammatical
categories which appeared in the passage are listed as follows (numbers in the paren-theses indicate frequencies; categories were established after Makino and Tsutsui
(1986)). 1) Adjectives ( 4)
2) Adverbs (2) 3) Conjunctions (1) 4) ko-so田小do( 4) ( special functions-demonstrative, etc.)
5) Nouns一（13)/propernouns (3×5 each2) 6) Onomatopoeiac words (2) 7) Particles (8) 8) P町五xes(1) 9) Special functions ( 4) ( causative 1 ; passive 1, others 2)
10) Verbs-Compound verbs (5)/inflection (7)/stem (6)
1“Obaasan”appeared in line one. Then it appeared recursively in item 5 as“［O]ba嗣
αsan." This pattern makes an easy guess for JSL learners. 2 “Obaasan，”“ Ojiisan，＇’and “M仰 wtaro”五tthe blanks three times each.
Reading Comprehension Performance 137
The acceptable悶 answerscoring method was used based on the native university
student (NUS) data. In other words, if a word was replaced by another word which
was found equally frequently (more than one-third of the time) in the NUS data, both
words were accepted as correct answers. One exception was that the word soko [NI] (soko [E] was the exact word) was not accepted even though the native data showed
almost equal frequency. This was decided rationally by grammatical analysis.3 Table
1 shows the decisions for acceptable answers.
Table 1 Native Speaker’s Usage of Words in Pilot Study
Exact word % words appeared in NUS data n=33
# 9 soko [E] 58% soko [NI] 42% (not accepted3) #24 [WA] rou 52% [KI] rou 48% (accepted) #27 pαku [T] to 52% paku [RI] to 42% (accepted)
paku [N] to 6% (not accepted) #35 [SO] no ko 79% [KO] no ko 21 % (not accepted) #45 [YA] 93% [TO] 15% (not accepted)
A possible word is shown in [ ] .
Procedures
The native五rst田 graders’datawere collected from two classes (n=49) of the same public
school in Tokyo. The test was administered in classrooms under the homeroom
teachers' supervision in March toward the end of the school year. The children should
have mastered all hiragana and 76 kanji by this time. As shown in Table 2, the time
limit was 30 minutes. Six out of the 49 answer sheets were incomplete. Only com-
plete answer sheets (i.e., n=43) were used in the analysis. Most children spent 20
to 30 minutes according to the teachers. (Note that the native university students in
the pilot group spent only 2.5 to 3 minutes to complete this test). The JSL learners
Table 2 Subjects
Native children (Gl) Adv. JSL Int. JSL NSU-Pilot
Valid 43 (88%) 29 (100%) 31 (79%) 33 (100%) Invalid**1 6 (12%) 0 ( 0%) 8 (21%) 0 ( 0%) know Momotaro**2 40 (93%) 23 ( 79%) 5 (16%) 33 (100%) Time spent 30 min. 10-20 min. 30 min. 2-3 min.
**1 Test was incomplete (probably due to time limit). * *2 Knowing the story or not may a妊ectthe ability to read and fill in the blanks.
3 The particle，“e (he）”is described as“a particle th抗 indicatesthe direction toward which some directional movement or action proceeds ”（Makino and Tsuts叫 1986:116), whereas “ni" is described as“a particle which indicates a place toward which someone or something moves.け（Ibid.,302). The particle“e”seems to carry a more exact meaning (i.e.，“directional movement”） in this context.
nメU
今偽
JTA
世界の日本語教育
also took the test in a classroom. The advanced students spent about 10 to 20 minutes.
Most of the intermediate JSL learners spent 30 minutes. Eight out of 39 intermediate JSL learners did not complete the test, whereas all the advanced JSL learners com岡
pleted the test. (See Table 2.)
Analysis The descriptive test statistics in this study included the mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum scores, range, variance, number of subjects (n), and number of items (k). The k皿 R20reliability coe伍cientwas also calculated.
Item facility and item discrimination for each of the 72 items were calculated sep田
arately for each group (native五rstgraders, advanced JSL, and intermediate JSL learn町
ers). Each ~roup was further divided into three levels (ap~roximately O町田thirdeach) for upper, middle, and lower levels for estimating item discrimination.
To determine which speci五cdifferences among the group means were signi五cant,a onかwayANOVA was performed, and post四 hoccomparisons were made with the
Scheff，己 test. Then, one皿 wayanalysis of variance procedures were applied for each
of the 72 items separately to see if there were any signi五cantmean differences on speci五citems. The alpha for all statistical tests was set at .05. Hence, with this many sta岨
tistical comparisons, the results must be interpreted very cautiously.
Results
The descriptive statistics for the test results of each group are reported in Table 3. The di妊erencebetween the means of the native五rstgraders and the advanced JSL
learners was only 3.46. However, the五rst・－graders’minimumscore was 18, which made the range much larger than those of the two groups of JSL learners. The k回
R20 statistic indicated that the reliability of the test was higher in the more pro五cient
levels (i.e., the native五rstgraders a吋 advancedJSL learners) than for the lower level.
But even in the lower level, a K-R20 of .83 indicates that the test was remarkably re四
liable.
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics
1st Grade Adv. JSL Int. JSL
k 72 72 72 n 43 29 31 MEAN 62.77 59.31 43.65 SD 9.82 8.43 6.55 MIN 18.00 32.00 28.00 MAX 72.00 71.00 64.00 RANGE 54.00 39.00 36.00 K帽 R20 0.94 0.91 0.83
Reading Comprehension Performance 139
The item facility (IF) and item discrimination (the percentage answering correct砂in the top 33% minus the percentage for lower 33%) was also calculated for each group. These item statistics are listed in Appendix B. The overall ANOVA procedure indicated that there was a signi五cantdifference
somewhe民 amongthe individual item comparisons (F口 46.56;df=2, 100; p<.01) be-tween the group means. The Scheff己procedurefurther indicated that, overall, Group 1 (native 1st graders) and Group 3 (intermediate JSL), and Group 2 (advanced JSL) and Group 3 were significantly di古erent. However, Group 1 and Group 2 were not signi五cantlydifferent (i.e・， native children and advanced JSL learners were not signif.問
icantly different). F-ratios were then calculated for each item. Thirty回 threeitems were found to be signi五cant(i.e., items 1, 3, 9, 13, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, and 72).
Discussion
This study addressed four research questions regarding comparisons between native Japanese children and two groups of JSL university students. The五rstquestion concerned the reliability of the test for each group. The K-R20 reliability coe伍cientsindicated that the test had moderate to very high reliability for these three groups. This means that the results of this cloze procedure were consistent regardless of the background of the subjects (i.e., native speakers and JSL learners). In other words, the test was equally consistent for native children and JSL university students, re-gardless of level. The above五ndingsalso suggest that the cloze procedure may be used not only for measuring reading comprehension but also for measuring second language acquisition processes for comparison with native children ( although this paper is not dealing with that topic).
The second research question was aimed at determining whether or not there would be differences in item facility and item discrimination for certain groups (i.e., native children and JSL learners). The results indicated that the performances of the native children and the advanced JSL learners were very similar. Interestingly, the aι vanced JSL learners answered more items correctly than the native children (31 items out of 72, or 43 %). Close analysis revealed that: 1) advanced JSL learners were more correct in writing rules than native children on some items (e.g., geminative consonant, or small tsu, particle usage of切αando, or the distinction between ra and dαin tabe四
[ra ]rete); 2) JSL learners used reasonable guesses or higher帽 ordercognitive strategies for solving problems ( e.g., correctly fi.lli碍 inrecursive words such as [O]bααsan after obaasan had appeared in a sentence before); 3) classroom learning for JSL may affect performance (e.g., both the intermediate and advanced JSL learners performed better than the五拭 gradersin se1伽 ku[O] shiteiru, and tabemasho[U], both of which the JSL learners learn systematically according to the grammatical syllabus in the class田
room); on the other hand, 4) native children performed better on idiomatic or cultural expressions or words which they often hear and/or read naturally (e.g., arutokoroni
140 世界の日本語教育
q戸＇isantoobaαsαn[GA] sundeimashita where many JSL learners put [WA] instead. The conjunction usage, [ SU]ruto sonotoki, yamete[O]kure, and kibi[DA]1伊 asa special vocabulary a pp eared in this particular folk tale were such examples); 5) some exp res回
sions are hard to acquire for JSL learners (e.g., usage of the particle for ‘purpose’in oniotaijishi[N I], and the adverbial usage of adjectives as in genkiyo[KU]aruiteikima-shita); and 6) both native children and JSL learners had di伍cultアwith words that carried delicate shades of meaning compared to the native university students (e.g., usage of [YA] which indicates 'two or more items ’being distinctively different from [TO］れwoitems)). Hence, detailed analysis has revealed clear-cut differences in the pro五ciencyof native children and JSL learners. The third research question asked if there was any difference in performance on each
item according to the group membership (native回 children,advanced JSL and i川町田
mediate JSL). Seventy四 twoitems were analyzed using onかwayANOVA and 46 percent of the items (33 out of 72) turned out to be signi五ca此 Hence,this test can be used to discriminate between native children and JSL learners as well as used as a comprehension test for each group (as stated in question 1). The last research question was concerned with whether or not there was a signi五cant
difference in overall performance between native children and JSL learners. Ac-cording to the statistical analysis, the performance of native children and advanced JSL learners was not signi五cantlydi百erent,but that of intermediate JSL learners was significantly lower than both. This indicates that at the lower level, JSL learners are different from natives and as they get closer to an advanced level, their performance
becomes closer to that of native children. However, as indicated above in answering research question 2, a close grammatical and semantic analysis revealed different charac四
teristics between the native children and the advanced second language learners.
These results suggest that the acquisition processes of五rstand second language learn醐
ers may conceivably be investigated using data obtained on a doze procedure, which lies beyond the scope of this paper.
CONCLUSION
This study has described characteristics of the reading comprehension performance of native children, advanced JSL learners, and intermediate JSL learners using a doze test based on a folk tale, Momotaro. The五ndingsindicated that the native children and the advanced JSL learners had similar overall linguistic performance, while the performance of the native children and the intermediate JSL learners were signi五cantly
different. The close analyses suggested that even between the native children and the advanced learners, there were some salient differences. Moreover, this study found that the doze test was an effective measure for analyzing reading comprehension per回
formance for both native children and JSL learners. Although this study only dealt with linguistic elements, it appears that doze tests provide fairly representative samples of the written language, including rule systems at the word, clause, sentence, discourse, and pragmatic levels (Brown, 1991). Hopefully, analyses of the higher level int町田
Reading Comprehension Performance I4I
sentential components of the language can also be conducted on the data from this study in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Dr. J. D. Brown of the University of Hawaii at Manoa for his insightful comments and suggestions. I would like to thank Ms. Fumiko Kawakami of Salm闇
razutsumi Elementary School in Tokyo for her help in collecting the test samples from the五rstgraders. I also wish to thank my colleagues at International Christian Uni-versity, Machiko Netsu, Takashi Ogawa, and Yδko Suzuki, for their help in collecting data from their students for this study.
Appendix A Cloze test“MOMOTARO”
あなたのなまえ（ 年月
）にひらがなかかんじを一ついれてください．
むかしむかし、（あ）るところに，おじ（い）さんとおばあさん（が）すんでいました．
おじいさんはまい（日）山へしばかりに，（お）ばあさんは川へせ（ん）たくにいきました．
日
ある日，おばあ（さ）んが川でせんたく（を）していると，そこ（へ）大きなももがどん（ぶ）
らこ，どんぷらこ， とながれてきまし（た）．おばあさんは，「 おや，まあF これ（は）
大きなももだこと． いえへもってかえ（っ）ておじいさんとい（っ）しょにたべましょ（うい
といって，いえへ（も）ってかえりました．
タがた，おじい（さ）んは山からかえっ（て）きました．おじい（さ）んはももを見ると，
大そうびっくりし（て）， rおやおや，こ（れ）は大きなももだ．（お）ばあさん，いっし（ょ）
にたべるとしよう J といって， ももを（わ）ろうとしました． （す）るとそのとき， も（も）
がまん中からぱく（っ）とわれて，中から（か）わいい男の赤ちゃ（ん）が「おぎや｝」と（う）
まれました．おじ（い）さんとおばあさん（は）とてもおどろきま（し）た．けれども，子（ど）
もがいないので，（こ）の子を大せつにそ（だ）てることにしまし（た）．名まえは， もも（か）
ら生まれたので「（も）もたろう J にしま（し）た．
ももたろうはま（い）日‘まい日大きく（な）っていきます．そ（の）ころ‘村にわるい（お）
にがやってきでは， 村人からたべもの（や）きるものをとっていすき，村人を大へん（こ）
まらせていました． そこで、ももたろ（う）はおにをたいじし（に），おにがしまへい（く）
ことにしました． （お）じいさんと，おば（あ）さんは「そんなあ（ぶ）ないことはやめて（お）
くれ．おににたベ（ら）れてしまうよJ と（い）ってしんばいしま（し）た．けれども， も（も）
たろうは， 「だい（じ）ょうぶ，きっとぼ（く）がおにをやっつけ（て）きますJ といいま（し）
た．おじいさんと（お）ばあさんは，もも（た）ろうのために， 「（日）本一J とかいたは（た）
と， 日本一のきび（だ）んごをつくって，（も）たせてやりました．
142 世界の日本語教育
「日本一」のは（た）と， 日本一のきび（だ）んごをもったもも（た）ろうが， げん気よ（く）
あるいていきました．
［しつもん］
あなたはこの話をしっていますか．口はい→なんという話ですか．
口いいえ，しりません．
143 Reading Comprehension Performance
Appendix B I tern Analysis
GRADE 1 (1)=the native Japanese children （五rstgraders)
ADV. JSL (2) =the advanced Japanese learners
INT. JSL (3) =the intermediate Japanese learners
!=item
IF= item facility
IFT=item facility for the upper group (33%) on the whole test
IFB口 itemfacility for the lower group (33 %) on the whole test ID= item discrimination for an individual item ( = IFT-IFB)
IV= item variance
DI=di百erenceindex 出門的ト白山 NOOOO tOOOO守 間 的qrl 田町田N 同 ト町田守N ＂＇ト円守 N ON.-<
0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 000
N ＂＇回円何回円 000由.－＜ 000何回円NM r--coば3σhベ meコocコEコ p司 α）(0Cもか3 F叫 ON’4 ・・・．． ．．．．． ．．．．． ．．．
o cコo cコCコ o 伊噌 r<CコEコ oocコCコEコ EコCコCコI
円。00白ロトロロロ円ト000円円門口町 00000 moooo m o由同D 000
.... ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・．円門阿00 0 門門0 0 口門000 0 O 口
I
toOOON 田口00回目ト回国口 CON門司トN 的 N 0 可円
－．．・・ ・・・．． ．．． 0 門 000 00000 000
守口．口
町門．
0
ト∞．
0
00．門
的
m
．00円
H
国
0．0
円円．
0
回同．
0
国
0．Dl
申
0．0
∞門．
0
守阿．
0i
白
0．0
I
N
D．0
由
0．0
同門．
0
ト【．
0
0円．
0
0
N
．O
D
D
－
D
om．0
0
∞．
0
0
ト．
0
00．同
00．
刊
。
ト
．
o
qm．0
ト∞．
0
トト．白
D0
．coo
－
O
由
0
．C
OD．G
O
o
－
0
0
門．
0
00．
門
。
0．H
O
m
．0
00．円
00．【
00．阿
00．門
00．
門
円
m．口
N同．
0
国
0．C
T
0
．0
トN．0
ト
N．0
円円．
0
円ト．
0
円ト．
0
ト田．
0
00．同
00．
門
口
0．H
∞∞．
0
何回．
o
m
m
．0
的
H
H
T
門
同
町
【
阿 回目O Mト守 00000 ト 000門的COMN momoo 00000 田口ト円円 00 F・』.. ・・・・・ ・・．．． ．．．．． ．．．
。門00口門門H 00 0 門 O D 口口0 口
I
tO coo円ト N ト O 0 0門田000＇＜！＇円。回N 白 0 moo moo口 D .，，固山内N G 司 Mb・4 ・・・．． ．．．．． ．．．．． ．．．
o~噌 ocコ 0 Cコp喝F司0 0 00000 oocコ
トトMMO田 lOOO0 目白000<0 N O 国N トロHO'<l'r< '<l'OlOO>N O 門 O 門 O M ト円炉吋 ・・・．． ．．．．． ．．．．． ．．．
00000 00000 口 0000 000
出国O ト円o oooorn トロ00.－＜円円円N COO回同H rnor-Mo coo田 N 門 000 ト‘．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．
。門00口 Or<OOO 0 門口口O 000 I
l() てTMMO守由口0 白山町OOOM lQOlQ N 回目ト N 門 守山口出N C 門口門O 町田守炉4 ・・．．． ．．．．． ．．．．． ．．．
00000 0000口 00000 000
N '<l'MOMC> 門口口白山 守口oorn morn 門トm<DMr< mo田 N 0 トロJtoNr< r<0.-1
.... ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・00 0 口 0 0 円。口口口0000 0 口口
z、OOOM 。ap呼Ma, D四円。 000
－・・・－ －．． 0 門 000 ロロC
0 r吋OM！・4口 MOOOto F吋Eコ：：，or叫ト， cコNrl coo凶..，..... rnorn.-1 Cコトo ＂＇＇°＂＇門門 N
令幽4 ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・Or<OOO 0 門 000 0 円。00 口 口0
四円rno団 自 由000守 oooorn 田守由。 的ト N¥llN 門田円円N 門口円r<O 同守N
】 ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・。0000 0 0 0 0 0 00000 000 I
。口．
D
OG
－
0
00．門
口口．門
00．【
ND．。
ト口．
0
円四．
0
00．円
∞m．0
門司同
句1 <llO＜＇‘ V》てr cooooco ＂‘れ SONto o、0)0)ト3 encコロコ F略亡〉 r、， Ol!lぽ） rl Eコ。＞ONcコ r寸tt)(Dト・4 ・・・・． ．．．．． ．．．．． ．．．
口同0 0口口同O 0 0 00000 0 0 口
門田O ト MO rnoooto ザ 000＇＜！＇目的由。＇ cocコ <OM~唱 P‘ O\llltlr寸 α） COCOO.-< OOCコト4 ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・
。門0 00 0 【 000 0 口 000 0 口口
同凶O ト門司 00000 00口 00 目的ON moco門 0 00000 0000口 0 00 ・・4 ・・ ・．． ．．．． ． ．． ．．． ． ． ．
Or<OOO 【門同0 0 門門 .-100 口口口I I
門 国 ロ ド 円 ロ ト 口 口 口 町 00口口町田NCON 国 D to 円円 rnrno 門 o m 口田N 0 000 .... －－・・・ ・．．．． ．．．．． ．．．
Or噌000 OOr吋o o o 戸唱 oocコ ocコ0I I I
0 回円ト由N 円 000守的00口目的ロトN cornα）O 阿国O ト円【 N <ON守 r< O<DID ・4 ・．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．
00000 0 門。0 0 00000 000
曲目OOON ト白白OM oooorn 門守由。田 口田守何 回口町【O mo回 NO 円 。o
.... ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・Or吋oocコ 0.-<0Cコo o 炉唱000 000
I I
ト 00000 ト 0 口OM 0 0 0 0 0 MO円。00000 rnoooo oooロ0 000
b吋 ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・阿 門 判 。 。 。円同0 0 【門.-100 000
I
回目。ロON ト 000円守000由円守門o rnoooo morn門 0 mo田 N 0 000
炉4 ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・。門.－＜0 0 0 円 000 0 H 0 0 0 000
回同OMト CO 00000 000白 o rnrno o rnoト N O 0 0 0 0 0 0000口口00.... ・・・・・ ・．．．． ．．．．． ．．．
。同000 同門門口0 門門門00 口 D 0 I I
"" .-10ト門田町000ぜ F・口00門田守守0 田口国円。 田町田門門 田 町 田 門 門 000
炉.. ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・。同000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
同 国O 的ト N MOOO守田aoo目 的 N トo rnornoo 田口白山門 N 的 NMr-< H ト in
..... ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・e ・・・ ・・・。同0 00 D 門 000 口口O 00 D 口 。
00
．0
口0
．000
．c
oo
－。口0
．000．同
00
．H 口0．円
。。．
c
oo
－
o
D0
．H
oo－
円。0．
【
00
．0
口0
．000．門
D0．門
00．同
町
H
H
田町亡コM ト N ooocコEコトOOOM わ3同 Mr-1 mornoo 00000 rnorn .... o ooo
ト4 ・・ a ・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・。同O 0 0 同門 r-100 0 門 000 000
ト曲円。トN 的 000也 00000 ¥()Nト同 0)0)000 町田O NO 00000 000 ル4 ・・・・・ ・・．．． ．．．．． －－－
00問。O 0 0 .... 0 0 門門門00 000 I I I
ー ｛内
F、。＞ M ~‘、ー，、ー’』’』l ...l .... (/) (/)
w ’..，炉、。＞MM0 • • I I I gト回 〉ヒ回 ドト回 r-<MN
仏 u.u.O！＞。Lt,..仏 O ！＞乞仏』 £.1.0!> ........ .... () ............... HH<l;HHHHHHHH>--<HH 000
N 00000 ト 00口 円 00000 MO円。0 0 0 0 0 rnoooo 00000 ooo
炉4 ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・門 門H 00 D 門 門00 門門同00 000
【 0 0 0 0 0 MOOO由 NOOON ト 国HO oooocコ 010α）NO σ，.，、ザ吋てTれS EコtDtD
H ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・・・・ ・・門 門 門 口 口 口門000 O 口口 口 口 口口口
｛ ｛
，、。a M 門）｝
』－ ...l ，斗門 的 enw 炉、 炉コ 。＞MM
0 ・ ・ I I I 2 ト国 〉ト由 トト由 門 rlNr...u.r...a:.>o仏仏』口：：，.zc....仏 仏 。 〉 .......... .....
c., ......................... -,,:....................................................... 000
H h千 h ＋ 時 判 G E 斗 れ 酬 明 鐸 胡
I52
1.00
1 .00
1. 00
0.00
0.00
1 .。。 1.00
1. 00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1. 00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.。。
1 5 0 ？ 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 D O D O D 5 5 0
5 q d o s － 0 0 0 0 D O D O D O O D O O
V B － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
n u 、A n u n u n U 句 』 可 A司 A n υ n u －－ a苛 1・ 宅 1 4 n υ n u n u n υ n u
－－
0 7 0 3 7 8 9 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 6 8 7 0
5 7 0 ・3 4 1 5 0 4 5 2 1 5 0 5 1 0 5 5
τ ム ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ．
n U句 A n u n u n u n u ’A n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u
9 5 9 3 5 2 4 0 0 O B 5 0 0 0 5 2 0 8
4 5 7 9 1 1 2 5 1 4 1 0 2 0 2 D E B －
？・ ι ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
n u n u n υ n u n u n u n u n ν n ν n u n ν n u n υ n u n u n u n u n υ
－
R u n u n u n υ 円 u n u q d n》 n u n v内 o o u n U 円 u n v ヮ “ 、 ・ 4 ヲ u ヲ“
4 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 5 3 1 6 6 5 3 2 2 3 1
Y A － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
司 A可 み 句 A n u n u n u n υ n u n u n u n u n u n u n v n u n u n u n u
7 7 D 3 7 8 5 0 0 0 5 5 O D D S 2 0 9
4 7 0 3 5 1 5 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 7 4
，S A － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
n U 句 A n u n u n u n u t －－ nυ 可ム n u n υ n u n ν 円 υ n u n u n u n u
14 6
0.93
1. 0
0
0.80
0.20
0.06
0.62
0.80
0.60
0.20
0.24
0. 16
0.20
0.00
0. 2・0
0 .14
0.31
0.77
0.46
145
0.40
0.57
0.13
0.44
0.24
0.31
0.50
0. l
0
0.40
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0:00
o.oo
0.09
0.40
0.31
I44
0.93
1.00
0.80
0.20
0.06
0.79
1. 0
0
0.40
0.60
0 .16
0.16
0.50
0.00
0.50
0. 14
0.14
0.77
0.63
142
I43
0.95
0.86
l . 00
l. 00
0.87
0.67
0.13
0.33
0.04
0.10
0.93
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.74
0.55
1.00
0.80
0.40
0.30
0.60
0.50
0.19
0.25
0. 0
2 -o. 1
2
0.21
0.34
0.19
0.45
I40
I41
0.98
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.9.J
0.87
0.07
0.13
0.02
0.04
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.10
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.90
0.94
1.00
0.90
0.70
0.90
0.30
0.00
0.09
0.06
0.01 -0.05
0.07
0.02
0.06
0.06
B B 0 3 7 z o o n v 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 2 1 3
3 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 1 G O O G
－ － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
n u 哩 a n u n u n u 司 A苛 目 晶 、 A n u n u n U句 A n u n u n u n u n u n U
8 8 0 7 3 2 3 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 Z 7 8 5
3 8 0 6 3 1 9 0 5 2 0 6 0 4 5 2 D I Z
－ － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
n U句 A n u n u n u n U司 A n u n u n u n U司 A n u n u n υ n u n u n U
7 5 0 3 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 5 0
3 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 7 3 G O O I
－ － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
n u 、 A n u n u n u 、 品 、 品 、 4 n u n u n U唱 A n u n υ n υ n u n u n U
5 8 0 7 3 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 Z 9 7
3 B O B 3 1 8 0 6 4 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 7
1 ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
円 U司 4 n u n u n u n υ 唱 A n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u
F u n U 1占 n u 、A A ω T n d n v n u円 υ 1 A ラ h u n u n u n v ラ ω 司 i n b 勾，
3 5 7 5 1 Z 5 9 5 3 2 3 5 3 2 2 1 2 3
1 ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u円 u n u n u n u n u n u n u
4 3 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 5 7 O D D － 0 5 B
3 9 0 B 2 0 9 9 B O O B 9 7 2 1 O O D
I － － － － － － － － － － － i l ・ 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 G O D －G α 1 3 1 1 1
司 J n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u 守 ’ n u n u n u句 、 w n u内 J勺 d3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 1 0 0 O D
I － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
可 A T A司 A n u n υ T A司 4句 A n u n u n U司 ム n u n u n u n υ n u円 U
） ）
、J ヲ
u q U1
（ ｛
’t L L
1 5 S
E J J 2 3 3
n u － － － － －
A T B V T B T T B 1 1 2
R F F F D V D F F F D V N F F F D V I I I
G E I － － I A I I I I I － I I I I － D D D
172
0.91
1.00
0.73
0.27
0.08
0.45
0.90
0.10
0.80
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 4
6
0. 91
0.45
I71
0.93
1. 0
0
0.80
0.20
0.06
0.86
1. 0
0
0.60
0. 40
0. 12
0.77
0. 90
0.80
0. J
0
0. 1
7
0.07
0. 16
0.09
I70
0.93
1. 0
0
0.80
0.20
0.06
0.45
0.90
0.20
0.70
0.25
0.19
0.40
0.00
0.40
0 .16
0.46
0.74
0.25
I69
0.56
1. 0
0
0.20
0.80
0.25
0.38
0.90
0. 10
0.80
0.24
0.03
0 .10
0.00
0. 10
0.03
0. 18
0.53
0.35
I 68
0.72
0.93
0.33
0.60
0.20
0.31
0.70
0.00
0.70
0. 2)
0.06
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.06
0.41
0.66
0.25
I67
0.91
0.86
0.87
-0.01
0.08
0 .45
0.90
0.20
0.70
0.25
0. 16
0.40
0.00
0.40
0. 14
0.46
0.75
0.29
B 7 3 7 5 5 4 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 2 0 B
5 4 9 0 8 2 3 9 1 8 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 4 Z
I － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
n υ n u n U円 υ n u n υ n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u
5 5 0 0 0 2 D O D o s － 0 0 0 6 4 5 2
5 B O B 2 1 9 0 8 2 0 8 0 5 5 1 0 0 O
T 4 ・・ ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ， ． ． ． ． ． ． ，．
n U 司 1・ n u n u n u n ν 司 A n u n u n u n u τ 4 n u n u n u n u n u n u
4 5 0 7 3 4 7 0 0 0 3 0 D O D g －－ 5 5
5 9 0 B 1 0 9 0 9 1 9 9 0 8 2 0 0 0 0
7ι ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
n U司 A n u n u n u n u喝 A n u n u n u n υ 守 l 企 n u円 υ n u n u n υ n u
．
3 5 0 7 3 4 0 D O D O D O D D 0 5 5 0
6 q M O B －－ D O D D O D O D O D D O D o
v ， ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ．
n u 、 4 n ν n u n u 唱 A 、 よ 喝 A n ν n υ 、 ム 可 A 、s － n u n ν 円 u n u n u
時 －
ヲ u q d n u n u n u h h u n u n u n u n u n u ヴ a n u n u n u 守 主 守 ’ R u q d
6 9 0 B Z 0 0 0 0 o n u s g B 1 1 0 0 1
T E ‘ ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ．
n u句 A n u n u n u 可 A匂 A司 A n v n u n v n u n u n u n u n u n u n u
可 4 q d n u 勾’ q u R U 勺 d n ν n u n u バ UT ワ h u n υ n u n u A句 n u電 卓 、 A
S B O B － 0 8 0 7 3 1 4 5 4 1 2 1 5 4
’Z A － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
nυ 、， a n u n u n u n u 、A n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n ν n u n u
0 4 0 D 0 4 3 0 0 0 4 9 D O D － － 5 4
6 B 0 6 4 1 B 0 6 4 1 2 4 4 0 2 0 5 5
守 E A － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
n v司 a n u n u n u n u句 A n u n u n u n U H u n u n u n u n u n u n u
9 8 3－ 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 8 5 3
5 8 9 7 2 1 9 0 9 1 0 B B B 1 1 0 0 1
？i ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ － － － － － － － －
n u n u n u n u n u n U司 A n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u
． －
R u n u n u q u守 e n u 今 ’ n u n u n u q u n u n u n v n u n u n u内 t u q u
5 8 0 7 2 1 9 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 G o o － o
’s ・． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ，
0 1 D O D o － o O D I － － 0 0 0 0 0
－ 一 －
7 3 0 D O B 7 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 3 4 4 0
’ b a d n v食 uヲ u n u a d n u q ν ‘ A n u q M ロ d n v唱 A n u 円 v n u n u
vム ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ， ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ． ．
n U宅 A n u n υ n u n U司 A n u n u n U 門 u n U胃 4 n u n u n u n u n u
－ － － －
6 1 D 3 7 8 3 0 o n u s z o o n u 4 2 2 1
5 9 0 7 2 0 9 0 B 2 0 4 7 1 5 2 0 4 5
V L ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ， ．
0 1 0 G o o － o D O D O D O D O D 0
5 4 0 3 7 4 3 D O G E － 0 0 0 1 9 3 2
5 B 0 5 4 1 9 9 9 0 0 7 9 5 3 2 0 1 2
T E A － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － － －
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D O G O O 0 0 0 0
－
4 0 5 7 9 4 8 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 3 2 7 5
5 5 B 2 5 2 4 2 0 9 2 D O D O 0 1 5 4
？ ・ ゐ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n u n U円 u n u n u n u n u n u
I53
G貼
DEl( 1 l I
IF
O. 44
IFT
0.79
IFB
0.20
ID
0.59
I¥"
0.25
ADV.J Sし（
2)
IF
0.83
IFT
1. 00
IFB
0.60
ID
O. 40
IV
0.14
INT.JSL(3)
IF
0.26
!FT
O. 50
IFB
O. 1
o
ID
0.40
IV
O. 19
D[l-2
-0.39
Dll-3
0 .18
DI2-3
0.57
Reading Comprehension Performance 145
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACTFL. 1986. ACT FL proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, New York: American Council on the teching of Foreign Languages.
Alderson, J.C. 1980. Native and nonnative speaker performance on doze tests. Language Learning 30: 59-76.
Bachman, L. F. 1982. The trait structure of doze test scores. TESOL Quarterly 16: 61-70.
一一一一.1985. Performance on doze tests with五xed-ratioand rational deletions. TESOL Quarterly 19: 535-56.
Bormuth, J. R. 1965. Optimum sample size and doze test length in readability measurement. Journal of Educational Meαsurement 2: 111-16.
一一一.1967. Comparable doze and multiple-choice comprehension tests scores. Journal
of Reαding 10: 291-99.
Brown, J. D. 1980. Relative merits of four methods for scoring doze tests. Nfodern Lan同
guage Journαl 64 : 311-17.
一一ー一.1983. A closer look at doze: Validity and reliability. In Issues in language testing research, ed. J. W. Oller, Jr. (pp. 237-250). Rowle｝ら Mass.: Newbl町 House.
一一一一.1984. A doze is a doze is a doze? In On TESOL’83, eds. J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem and B. P. Taylor (pp. 109-119). Washington, D. C.: TESOL.
一一一一.1988. Tailored doze: Improved with dassical item analysis techniques. La1ぜuα!ffeTesting 5 : 19-31.
1991. What text characteristics predict human performance on doze test items?
Proceedings of the third conj erence on second-languαwe research in Jゅan. Tokyo: Inter幽
national University of Japan. 一一一一.Forthcoming. Language testing.・ A practical guz・'deto profidency, placenient, diagnostic
and achievement testing. New York: Prentice Hall. Chapelle, C. A. and R. Abraham. 1990. Cloze method: What difference does it make? Language Testing 7, no. 2: 121-46.
Chavez-Oller, M.A., T. Chihara, K. Weaver, and J. W. Oller, Jr. 1985. When are doze items sensitive to constraints across sentences? Language Learning 35: 181-206.
Chihara, T., J. W. Oller, Jr., K. Weaver, and M. Chavez-Oller. 1977. Are doze items seかsitive to constraints across sentences? Language Learning 27, no. 1: 63-73.
Darnell, D. K. 1970. Clozentropy: A procedure for testing English language pro五ciencyof foreign students. Speech Monographs 37: 36-46.
Hinofotis, F. B. 1987. Cloze testing: An overview. In Methodology in TESOL-A book of readings, eds. M. Long and J. Richards (pp. 412-417). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Jonz, J. 1987. Textual cohesion and second回 languagecomprehension. Language Learning
37: 409-38.
一一一一． 1990. Another turn in the conversation: What does doze measure? TESOL
Quarterか24,no. 1: 61-83.
Klein幽 Braley,C. 1985. A dozeぺ1pon the C-Test: A study in the construct validation of authentic tests. Languαwe Testing, 2: 76-104.
Makino, S. and M. Tsutsui. 1986. A dictionαry of bαsic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: Japan
Times.
Markham, P. L. 1985. The rational deletion doze and global comprehension in German. Lαnguage Leαrning 35, no. 3: 423-30.
146 世界の日本語教育
Miller, G. R. and E. B. Coleman. 1967. A set of thirty司 sixprose passages calibrated for
complexity. Journal of Verbal Learnt・ngand Verbal Behavior 6: 851-54. Oller, J. W., Jr. 1979. Lαnguage tests at school: A pragmatic approαch. London: Long司
man.
Shanahan, T., M. Kamil, and A. W. Tobin. 1982. Cloze as a measure of intersentential
comprehension. Reading Reseαrch Quarterly 17, no. 2: 229-55. Taylor, W. L. 1953. “Cloze procedure ”： A new tool for measuring readability. four圃
nalism Quαrterか30:414-38. . 1957. “Cloze " readability scores as indices of individual differences in compreherト
sion and aptitude. Journal of Applied Psychology 41, no. 1: 19-26.
小川多恵子（1992) 「プレースメントとしてのクローズテストJ, Ir'日本語教育論集」 8号， pp.201-14，筑波
大学留学生センター．
芝祐）I関（1957）「読みやすさのはかり方一一クローズ法の日本語への適用J, Ir'心理学研究 (JapaneseJour同
nal of Psychology)dl 28号， pp.67-73.
秦喜美恵（1983）「クロ｝ズ法による日本語能力の測定J，国際基督教大学学報 r教育研究J25号， pp.141-
77.
一一一一ー（1990) 「日本語クロ｝ズテストから日本語変形 Cテストへ一一採点法の問題を中心にJ, 「雷語文
化論集c!lXI-2, pp. 213-25，名古屋大学総合言語センター．
山下早代子・小川早百合（1994) r上級日本語教科書：インタピュ｝プロジェクトふくろしお出版．
