See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312160280

Readability Of Muet Reading Comprehension Passages

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 742

1 author:

Christina Sook Beng Ong

Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
8 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Malaysian Chinese Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christina Sook Beng Ong on 09 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

Readability Of Muet Reading Comprehension Passages

CHRISTINA ONG SOOK BENG
ongsb@utar.edu.my

KRISHNAN A/L VENGIDASAMY

krishnan@utar.edu.my

CHRISTOPER SELVARAJ A/L J. JACOB

christopersj@utar.edu.my

RENU A/L KAILSAN

renu@utar.edu.my

ABSTRACT

In view of the declining number of Band 5 and 6 scorers in MUET (800/3) Reading result, this study aims to
evaluate the readability of MUET reading comprehension passages by comparing arts and science-based texts. Only
MUET reading test papers from 1999 to March 2014 amounting to 152 passages grouped into two main disciplines
namely arts and science were analysed using three readability formulae namely Flesch Reading ease (FRE), Flesch-
Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog score. Findings revealed that 34 arts-based passages and 23 science-
based passages were relatively difficult to read with FRE scores below 50.9 but most of the texts recorded FRE
scores between 51 and 60.9. The FKGL of the arts-based passages ranged from 5 to 15 while the science-based
passages ranged from 7.2 to 15. There were altogether 16 passages being highly complicated with FRE 26.3 – 40.3
and FKGL 13.2 – 15 which means readers who have completed 13th grade or above which is equivalent to first or
second year of university in Malaysia are able to comprehend all the passages. According to the Gunning Fog
score, most of the passages irrespective of discipline fall within the hard range that is 11 to 15.9. These results can
function as a guideline in choosing passages for not only the mentioned reading test but also other existing
proficiency tests. Moreover, the suitability of texts used to assess test-takers from different background can be
ensured.

Keywords: Readability, MUET, reading test and reading comprehension passages

INTRODUCTION

Taken by thousands of pre-university students annually, Malaysian University English Test

(MUET) is an English proficiency test used as a yardstick for entry into tertiary education. The
rationale of focusing on MUET is to achieve one of the prerequisites of Malaysia Vision 2020
strategy that is educated Malaysians should possess a good command of English (Zuraidah,
2003). To gauge the overall English Language proficiency of students in the cumulative score of
the language skills in a single Band Score – ranging from Band 1 (the lowest band) to Band 6,
the four basic language skills are tested in MUET (Naginder & Rohayah 2006). The structure of
the MUET paper can be seen in Table 1.
In recent years, a declining trend was observed for those obtaining higher bands generally
and the reading component. The number of Band 6 scorers in MUET (800/3) Reading result
plummeted from 4.57% in 1999, when the test was introduced to a mere 0.09% in 2011;
similarly, the number of Band 5 scorers dropped drastically from 19.69% to 3.47% (Malaysian
Examination Council, 2012).

92
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

Table 1: Structure of the MUET Paper

Component Format Duration Weightage

Listening 20 questions: 30 minutes 15%

Information transfer
Short-answer questions
Multiple-choice questions

Speaking Task A: Individual presentation 30 minutes 15%

Preparation : 2 minutes
Presentation : 2 minutes

Task B: Group interaction

(4 candidates to a group)
Preparation : 2 minutes
Discussion : 10 minutes

Reading 45 or 50 multiple-choice questions 90 minutes 40%

Writing Question 1: Interpretation of information 90 minutes 30%

based on specific stimuli provided
(no less than 150 words)

Question 2: Extended writing based on a

given topic
(no less than 350 words)

Total 4 hours 30 minutes 100%

Source: Malaysian Examination Council (2008)

Coupled with the above issue, Malaysians have been found to be more inclined to read
non-academic materials like newspapers and magazines compared to citizens from developed
countries who read books (The Star, 2009). Two books were what Malaysians read a year on
average, according to statistics revealed by Malaysian National Library a decade ago (NST,
2012). After engaging with various institutions and non-governmental organizations to
coordinate reading activities and promotion programmes, the Secretariat for the National
Reading Promotion claimed that Malaysians were reading an average of eight to twelve books a
year in 2010. Since reading books has been constantly avoided, the probability of them reading
scholarly materials or academic texts is low. Refusal to read academic texts will lead to poor
understanding of long sentences and those containing difficult words generally (Normazidah,
Koo & Hazita, 2012). It is crucial for teachers and test designers to choose and use texts suitable
to learners’ levels of English proficiency because Zinki as cited in Perekeme and Agbor (2012,
p.90) stressed that “an accomplished reader will soon become discouraged by texts which he/she
finds too difficult to read fluently”. Dubay as cited in Bidyarani Asem (2012) also expressed

93
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

similar view but in a more extreme way where learners cease reading altogether when
encountering really difficult texts.
In view of the declining number of Band 5 and 6 scorers in MUET (800/3) Reading result
and tendency of Malaysians turning away from academic texts, this study undertakes an analysis
of readability of MUET reading texts. Readability is the ease of which a written text can be
understood by a reader (Schutten & McFarland, 2009; Zamanian & Heydari, 2012). It can also
be seen as an attempt to match the reading level of a written material to the "reading with
understanding" level of the reader. Bidyarani Asem (2012, p.45) synthesised the definition of
readability and presented it as “readability focuses solely on writing style which concentrates on
the syntactic elements and excludes issues namely content, coherence, and organization within
the written text”. To communicate the intended message, the writer should ensure a text is
readable as readability according to Zamanian and Heydari (2012) as well as Beaglehole and
Yates (2010) is the essence of comprehensibility. In attempting to study the readability of MUET
reading comprehension passages, the following research questions are employed.

i) What is the average length of MUET reading comprehension passages?

ii) How readable are MUET reading comprehension passages?
ii) What are the similarities and differences between the readability scores of arts and
science-based MUET reading comprehension passages?

It must be made known that the objective of this study is not to delve into students’
performance or content of the passages, but to study the readability of the various genres
employed in the MUET that are sourced from articles in journals, newspapers and magazines,
academic texts and electronic texts. Moreover, whether or not the test takers comprehend the text
is not investigated.
The rationale for selecting reading over the other three skills tested in MUET – Writing,
Speaking and Listening, is mainly because of the accessibility of the data. If Writing, Speaking
or Listening were to be the focus, the study cannot be conducted as performance data on these
skills simply cannot be gathered. Due to the highly-confidential nature and also due to ethical
issues, only the examiners and Malaysian Examination Council (MEC) have any access to this
data. To obtain consent from test-takers is almost impossible. Moreover, the reading component
in MUET as shown in Table 1 has higher weightage compared to other skills because acquisition
of knowledge depends heavily on reading text materials (Zuraidah, 2003). She also stated that
MUET reading test is designed to help students make the transition from ESL reading to reading
for academic purposes (Zuraidah, 2003). Lee (2004) substantiated the point by stating university
students are expected to read more than to write. Moreover, reading tests have great potential to
inform researchers, teachers, educational professionals, administrators, and policy makers the
areas that need improvements and rate the curriculum or instructional methods.
The suitability of texts adopted in academic reading tests has been extensively discussed
over the years. Firstly, Jennings, Fox and Graves (1999) investigated the potential presence of a
topic effect for the Canadian Academic English Language (CAEL) Assessment using the
mechanism of choice. In spite of results depicting no significant between choice and topic effect,
most respondents pointed out the importance of choice in the open-ended questions on
questionnaires. Secondly, Kobayashi (2002) examined the effects of text organisation and
response format on second language learners’ performance in reading comprehension test result.
Students possessing different levels of proficiency can be easily distinguished based on the two

94
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

factors because highly proficient students were prone to do better. Thirdly, Green, Unaldi and
Weir (2010) focused on the resemblance of IELTS academic reading texts with first-year
undergraduates’ compulsory texts.
They identified 6 main textual characteristics namely: a) genre and rhetorical task; b)
grammatical characteristics: vocabulary and grammar; c) cohesion and rhetorical organisation; d)
text length; e) subject area, subject knowledge and cultural knowledge and; f) text abstractness
from previous literature which are regarded as potential sources of difference. The result
generated by the comparative study shows that the difficulty of IELTS passages is comparable to
university level but the IELTS texts are considered not challenging if they are used to test
students majoring in law that is linguistically more demanding. The textual properties,
specifically grammatical characteristics and text length proposed by Green et. al (2010), are the
essence of this study. This is because readability research as highlighted by Schutten and
McFarland (2009) generally focuses on the use of formulae that estimate the difficulty of a
passage by assessing word difficulty and sentence length.

METHODOLOGY

A descriptive study of the readability of MUET reading comprehension passages was done.
There were altogether 152 passages collected over the span of 16 years that is since the
commencement of MUET in 1999 to 2014. Each passage was typed into a text file prior to
readability analysis which is done using tools available on the Internet at https://readability-
score.com/. To reiterate, the primary goal of readability assessment tools is to estimate readers’
understanding of the given material, the subject matter of the text and the syntactic complexity of
the passage (Schutten & McFarland, 2009).
The readability calculation provided reports for various readability formulae. Since a
different formula sometimes produces different interpretations, three formulae namely Flesch
Reading Ease (FRE) score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog index (FOG)
were used to analyse the readability of the texts. Many researchers (Ho-Abdullah & Hashim,
2007; Schutten & McFarland, 2009; Zamanian & Heydari, 2012), suggested that these formulae
are the measurements most frequently used and the best known in readability analysis. A short
description of each of the formulae below is cited from
http://www.readabilityformulas.com/flesch-reading-ease-readability-formula.php:
a. FRE
It rates text on a 100-point scale (the higher the score, the easier the document is to read). The
calculation of the scores is based on the average number of syllables per word and words per
sentence. The score between 60 and 70 is largely considered acceptable.
b. FKGL
It rates text on a U.S. grade school level based on the average number of syllables per word and
words per sentence, for example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader would understand
the text
c. Gunning Fog
The underlying message of the Gunning Fog index is that short sentences written in plain
English achieve a better score than long sentences written in complicated language. The ideal
score of readability with the Fog index is 7 or 8. Anything above 12 is too hard for most people
to read.

95
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The readability of MUET reading comprehension passages is analysed in this section according
to the three research questions. There are altogether 98 arts and 54 science-based passages
collected within the span of 15 years. The preference towards arts-based text is evident in this
study. This can be linked to the general perception that science is deemed more difficult
compared to the arts subjects. Khoo (2013) shared similar view. She highlighted several cases
namely automatic enrolment of students with good grades to the science stream after completing
Form 3 as well as the 60% science and 40% arts ratio policy which are well known in Malaysia
(Khoo, 2013). Besides that, science articles are more argumentative in nature (Alderson, 2005)
and contain more lexical bundles indicating quantity and procedure (Ong & Yuen, 2015).
Figure 1 shows the length of all the passages in MUET reading test from 1999 to 2014. It
is found that the average lengths of the arts and science-based passages are 595.4 words and
599.2 words respectively. There are 35 passages irrespective of disciplines consisting of word
count ranging from 700 to 1000 words. However, three times more science-based passages with
900 words are identified as compared to arts-based passages. Almost 50% of arts-based passages
and 44.4% of science-based passages have not more than 599 words. It can be said that the
length of the reading passages is suitable for pre-university students. However, test designers
should consider limiting the length of passages to about 700 words and not adopt very lengthy
passages in future examinations.

Number
of texts

Length

Figure 1: Number of Texts based on Length of MUET Reading Passages from 1999 to 2014

To reveal the readability of MUET reading comprehension passages, Flesch Reading

Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog index (FOG) are taken into
account. The reading comprehension passages are separated according to the two fields prior to

96
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

generation of readability scores. Hence, the scores generated by the three formulae are arranged
in their respective fields as indicated in Table 2, 3 and 4.

Table 2: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE) Scores for Arts and Science-based MUET Reading
Texts

Arts Science
FRE Number % Number %
10-20.9 0 0 0 0
21-30.9 1 1.0 1 1.9
31-40.9 8 8.2 5 9.3
41-50.9 25 25.5 17 31.5
51-60.9 43 43.9 25 46.3
61-70.9 16 16.3 6 11.1
71-80.9 4 4.1 0 0
81-90.9 1 1.0 0 0
91-100 0 0.0 0 0
Total 98 100.0 54 100.0

As can be seen in Table 2, the FRE score of most passages fall between 51 and 60.9
which are fairly difficult but suitable and understandable by 10th and 11th graders. In the United
States, 11th grade students are 17 years-old at most which is equivalent to form 5 in Malaysia.
Ho-Abdullah and Hashim (2007) asserted that it is difficult to match the scores which follow the
US system with Malaysian ESL context due to the lack of research in this area. They eventually
generalised the grade levels to Malaysian context after seeing many Malaysian students enrolled
easily into A-levels programmes (Ho-Abdullah & Hashim, 2007). Having said that,
approximately 44.7% of MUET reading passages used irrespective of field are regarded as
undemanding for pre-university students who are 18 years-old in Malaysia. There are 21 arts-
based passages compared to 6 science-based passages which are relatively easy as the scores
show they can be easily understood by 7th to 9th graders equivalent to form 1 to 3 in Malaysia.
Only 27.6% of all MUET reading passages are pitched at the right level because suitable FRE
scores for 18 years-old are below 60.

97
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

Table 3: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) Scores for Arts and Science-based MUET
Reading Texts

Flesch-Kincaid Arts Science

Grade Level Number % Number %
0-5.9 1 1.02 0 0
6-6.9 2 2.04 0 0
7-7.9 7 7.1 2 3.7
8-8.9 8 8.2 7 12.9
9-9.9 23 23.5 4 7.4
10.10.9 20 20.4 17 31.6
11-11.9 14 14.3 7 12.9
12-12.9 14 14.3 10 18.5
13-13.9 7 7.1 5 9.3
14-14.9 1 1.02 1 1.85
15-15.9 1 1.02 1 1.85
Total 98 100 54 100

Focusing on the FKGL scores shown in Table 3, 23.5% of the arts-based passages are on
the 9 grade level while 31.6% of the science-based passages are on the 10th grade level. It is
th

worth noting that the FKGL score for science-based passages on 9th grade level is among the
lowest. In contrast to the second-highest number of arts-based passages which is on the 10th
level, the science-based texts are on the 12th grade level. These indicate some disparities in
FKGL scores for arts and science-based passages. It can be interpreted that most science-based
passages in MUET reading test have been appropriately chosen for Malaysian pre-university
students because 63% of the passages are on 10th to 12th grade levels. On the contrary, only 49%
of arts-based passages are on 10th and 12th grade levels. In terms of passages rating 9th grade
level and below, the number of arts-based passages with 41.9% is almost two fold more than the
science-based (24%). This implies that arts-based texts are generally easier as compared to
science-based texts.
Despite both formulae generate readability scores based on average number of syllables
per word and words per sentence, inconsistencies are noticeable between the FKGL and FRE
scores. It is noticeable that the former measures 1 to 2 grades level higher than the latter.
According to Allan, McGhee and van Krieken (2005) and Zamanian and Heydari (20120), the
discrepancy in scores generated is a result of different indicators of text difficulty being
employed by different formulae. To avoid biasness, another formula, Gunning Fog Index is used.
Adopting three different formulae to determine text readability is a common practice as proven
in past studies conducted by a few groups of researchers namely Ho-Abdullah and Hashim
(2007), Bidyarani Asem (2012), Zamanian and Heydari (2012), Schutten and McFarland (2009)
etc.

98
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

Table 4: Gunning Fog Scores for Arts and Science-based MUET Reading Texts

Gunning Fog Arts Science

Number % Number %
0-5.9 0 0 0 0
6-10.9 16 16.3 3 5.6
11-15.9 72 73.5 45 83.3
16-20.9 10 10.2 6 11.1
Total 98 100 54 100

Gunning Fog scores as shown in Table 4 depict that approximately three quarters of all
the MUET reading passages fall within the range of 11 – 15.9. As mentioned earlier, an index
between 7 or 8 is ideal but anything above 12 is considered hard. Allan, McGhee & van Krieken,
(2005) stated that Gunning Fog formula generates a lower score for short sentences written in
simple English and vice versa. This means most of the passages chosen for MUET reading tests
consist of long complicated sentences which is one of the contributing factors for the difficulty
of the test. It is worth mentioning that the number of really difficult passages is almost the same
for arts and science-based passages. In terms of passages which are readable, the number of arts-
based passages is three times the number of science-based passages. This can be attributed to the
total number of arts-based passages which is almost two times more than the science-based
passages.

In short, findings revealed that 34 arts-based passages and 23 science-based passages are
relatively difficult to read with FRE scores below 50.9 but most of the texts recorded FRE scores
between 51 and 60.9. The FKGL of the arts-based passages ranged from 5 to 15 while the
science-based passages ranged from 7 to 15. According to FKGL rating, 23 arts-based passages
and 17 science-based passages are suitable for 18 years-old and above. However, there are
altogether 16 passages regardless of discipline being highly complicated with FRE 26.3 – 40.3
and FKGL 13.2 – 15. Likewise, Gunning Fog index shows that 10 arts and 6 science-based
passages fall within 16 – 20.9, the very difficult range but most of the passages irrespective of
discipline fall within the hard range. This means only learners who have completed 13th grade or
above which is equivalent to first or second year of university in Malaysia will be able to
comprehend the 16 passages.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

The depiction of readability scores by applying three readability formulae highlighted that most
of the reading comprehension passages chosen for MUET reading test from 1999 to 2014 are at
the appropriate level. Only 10.5% of all the reading comprehension passages are very difficult to
comprehend. In fact, the readability of approximately 70% of all the texts is at a slightly lower
level according to FRE and FKGL scores. Having said that, why can’t pre-university students
perform in MUET, specifically the reading component? What could be the reasons for their
inability to answer the reading comprehension questions?

99
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

As what most critics of readability scores would say and it is also the only limitation of
this study, readability formulae rely solely on the length of words and sentences. The subject
area and text organisation, two relatively important textual properties proposed by Green et. al
(2010) are neglected in this study. The latter is reiterated by Schriver as cited in Zamanian and
Heydari (2012) who asserted that whole-text aspects i.e. organisation of paragraphs in texts
leading to the flow of information through the text are disregarded in readability formulae. In
terms of subject area, Kern as cited in Ong and Yuen (2015, p.86) recommended that “texts
chosen should deal with familiar topics in learners’ home culture, so that their background
knowledge can compensate for linguistic difficulty.” Alderson (2005, p.103) expressed similar
view by asserting that “subject-related texts might discriminate against individuals who happen
to possess less background knowledge in a particular field.” Hence, test designers and teachers
should consider choosing passages with topics that are relevant to learners’ home culture. When
the ideas and cultural references presented in the passages are very much close to the learners’
heart, they may be able to comprehend the passages better.
Bidyarani Asem (2012, p.52) emphasised that “reader-specific analysis (subjective
testing) is another important undeniable factor used in evaluating textual readability.” Readers
or learners cannot be disregarded when reading is concerned. This is because Selzer as cited in
Bidyarani Asem (2012) stated that readability of texts may vary significantly among different
learners as reading is a very personal activity and the psychological nature as well as educational
background of learners will be different too. This is substantiated by Zamanian and Heydari
(2012) who stressed the failure of readability formulae in addressing the interaction between
readers and texts. Teachers and test designers should take into consideration 4 features of learner
namely prior knowledge, reading skill, interest and motivation as suggested by Bidyarani Asem
(2012) before adopting a text. Undoubtedly, teachers constantly shoulder the responsibilities of
selecting or writing articles that could suit learners with diverse schemata, reading skills and
level of motivation.

CONCLUSION

This study has revealed that the length of MUET reading passages is generally suitable for pre-
university students but test designers would do well to consider limiting length of passages to
about 700 words. In terms of readability of the comprehension passages, 16 of them are highly
complicated while more than half of the arts and science-based passages are pitched at an
appropriate level as indicated by all the three formulae.
Despite its limitation, readability is an important factor to consider in selection of texts
for testing and certification purposes. The results of this study can function as a guideline in
choosing passages for not only the MUET reading test but also other existing proficiency tests. If
students are unable to read the text or are frustrated in their attempt to process the text, they may
not be able to perform in any reading tests. It can act as a guideline for teachers who are
preparing students for the MUET examination, especially in their selection of passages for
practice. Although the student’s ability in reading comprehension is a major factor in his or her
performance, it is best to ensure that any unfavourable results is not due to the poor selection of
text by the test designers.

100
 SOLLs.INTEC 2015 Proceedings

REFERENCES

Alderson, J.C. (2005). Assessing reading. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Allan, S., McGhee, M., & van Krieken, R. (2005). Using readability formulae for
examination questions. Unpublished report commissioned by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Retrieved from
http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/allan_et_al_using_readability_formulae_for_examination_questions_pdf_0
5_1607.pdf
Anon. (2009, April 19). Malaysians still not reading enough. The Star. Retrieved from
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/general_opinions/comments/malaysians_still_not_reading_enough_says_
muhyiddin.html
Anon. (2012, May 27). Are Malaysians Reading Enough? New Straits Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/are-malaysians-reading-enough-1.88043
Bidyarani Asem. (2012). Readability assessment of printed materials: Going beyond readability formulas.
International Jounal of Environment, Ecology, Family and Urban Studies (IJEEFUS), 2(4), 45-56.
Green, A. Unaldi, A. & Weir, C. (2010). Empiricism versus connoisseurship: Establishing
the appropriacy of texts in tests of academic reading. Language Testing, 27(2), 191–
211.
Ho-Abdullah, I., & Hashim, R.S. (2007). Readability analysis of Malaysian short stories in English. Jurnal e-Bangi,
2(2), 1-11.
Jennings, M., Fox, J., Graves, B., Shohamy, E. (1999). The test-takers’ choice: An
investigation of the effect of topic on language-test performance. Language Testing, 16(4), 426-456.

Khoo, Y.H. (2013, September 30). Are we marginalising social sciences? The Malaysian
Insider. Retrieved from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/khoo-ying-hooi/article/are-we-
marginalising-social-sciences
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: Text
organization and response format. Language Testing, 19 (2), 193–220.
Malaysian Examination Council. (2008). Malaysian University English Test (MUET).
Malaysia: Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia.
Naginder, K. & Rohayah, N. (2006). A case for reconstruction of the pedagogy of the Malaysian University English
Test (MUET) through thematic units instruction. JIRSEA, 4(1), 5-16. Retrieved from
http://www.seaairweb.info/journal/JIRSEA%20v4%20n1%202006%20Papers.pdf
Normazidah Che Musa, Koo, Y.L., Hazita Azman. (2012). Exploring English language
learning and teaching in Malaysia. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(1), 35-51.
Ong, C.S.B., & Yuen, C.K. (2015). Functional types of lexical bundles in reading texts of
Malaysian University English Test: A corpus study. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 15(1),
77-90.
Perekeme, B., & Agbor, C.A. (2012). Readability of language textbooks prescribed for junior
secondary schools and students’ performance in reading comprehension in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. British
Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 9(1), 89-96.
Schutten, M & McFarland, A. (2009). Readability levels of health-based websites: From content to comprehension.
International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 12, 99-107.
Velma J. Beaglehole, & Gregory C. R.Yates. (2010). The full stop effect: Using readability statistics with young
writers. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 11(4), 54-83.
Zamanian, M & Heydari, P. (2012). Readability of texts: State of the art. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
2(1), 43-53. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.1.43-53
Zuraidah, Mohd Don. (2003). Malaysian University English Test: Issues and concerns.
Studies in Foreign Language Education, 18, 17-32.

101

View publication stats