{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03530751708428246, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03189066059225513, 'mean_word_length': 4.598726114649682, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constructing a Multiple-Choice Cloze Test of E.S.L

in a wide range of activities. Aitken (1975) reviews much of the work done with cloze in E.S.L., and Riley (1973) and Robinson (1972) provide annotated bibliographies of research done in native language contexts. Although the cloze .procedure has gained credibility as a reading comprehension test in E.S.L. (Anderson 1971 and 1972), and as a test of general second language proficiency (Aitken 1977 and Oller 1973), there are a number of criticisms that have been made of the test, and many teachers and researchers have attempted to modify the test to overcome these perceived weaknesses. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the criticisms that have been used to justify the creation of a multiple-choice format cloze test, then to review three approaches to distractor selection for multiple-choice cloze tests.