Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fATETE027460; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:29:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:29:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20011129142453.68599.qmail@web11205.mail.yahoo.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Bertha Mo <bertiemo@yahoo.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3471] Re: NIFL-HEALTH digest 1191 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: O Content-Length: 4486 Lines: 144 Some of Christina's suggestions are already used in preparation of educational texts, largely for grade school and middle school students as well as for ESL students. I am the parent of a ten-year old in the 5th grade in Ottawa, Canada. Here math is taught based on language as the foundation. I find the actual math very simple, but the instructions written in English to be obscure. I applaud this effort to since I just had difficulties convincing a research group working with non-native English speakers to shorten and simplify a consent form. When I protested that the document was too long and not clear, I was met with the argument that every element was required by the donors. Doesn't matter that the document was so long as to put people to sleep. Bertie --- nifl-health@nifl.gov wrote: > NIFL-HEALTH Digest 1191 > > Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) Re: Readability formulas and evaluation > by lpbml <lpbml@pacbell.net> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:53:18 -0800 > From: lpbml <lpbml@pacbell.net> > To: nifl-health@nifl.gov > Subject: Re: Readability formulas and evaluation > Message-ID: > <MABBKFDHLFFKFFADLABNGEBFCEAA.lpbml@pacbell.net> > > Readability formulas have their place in evaluating > a book for literacy > purposes and needs; however, that responsibility > should be the burden of the > literacy professional or list creator, not the > author. > > With the list of questions suggested by Christina, > the kind of authors that > will be attracted and willing to put up with the > list are beginners, never > published, looking for an "in." The reason is that, > an established author > has a distinct style that he won't subjugate to an > arbitrary list or > criteria. The material that will be submitted, in > most cases, will be > written to your questionnaire. It will not be > creative, which in many cases > is what is needed to grab the attention and interest > of a low-skilled reader > to motivate them and add to their success and > confidence. > > What this approach does is remove established > authors from the field you are > trying so hard to build. My husband, now finishing > his seventh book, with a > contract already in hand on his next, literally, > said, "I would not touch > this with a ten-foot pole," and knows of instances > in which such an approach > was tried unsuccessfully. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nifl-health@nifl.gov > [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of > Christina Zarcadoolas > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:40 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3467] Re: Readability formulas > and evaluation > > > At 10:26 AM 11/19/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > Regarding the question about compiling a list of low > lit materials where > the creator of the list is not evaluating the > readability of each piece, > I'd create an inventory or audit sheet that each > author must include with > each piece. Perhaps the following could be > included: > > Has the materials been tested with low literate > readers? How ( in depth > reader interviews, focus groups, etc. ) What were > the results? > > In how many languages was the material tested? > > What grade level on conventional reading scores does > the material test out > at? > > THEN I'd include a required description of what > other language and writing > tools have been used by the authors to tailor to low > lit readers. I'd have > them describe in detail what characterizes the > language of the piece or I'd > create another audit sheet with elements such as: > Does the piece have strategic repetition? > Are all difficult words explained on the page? > How have complex sentences been unpacked? > Is there adequate cohesion between and across > sentences? > How does the layout reinforce it's readability? > How do graphics reinforce the print? > Is the piece culturally appropriate for low lit > users in XXXlanguage? > > These are just a few things a compiler can ask > authors to do to bolster > their claims that the text is actually suitable for > low literate audiences. > > Just some thoughts. > > Christina > > > > ------------------------------ > > End of NIFL-HEALTH Digest 1191 > ****************************** __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:44 EST