Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f5HKaHf10939; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001b01c0f76d$016276e0$01fb3ad0@oemcomputer> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Bonnie Odiorne" <bodiorne@c4k.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1704] Re: [ Re: an observation re a recent posting X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2772 Lines: 76 I concur; we certainly don't need to "dumb down" our discussions "amongst ourselves", even if we are verklempt... And if anyone has any questions or need for clarification, they need only ask. Let's not even implicitly criticize anyone on this list. We should treat each other as we value our learners: with respect. The last time anyone ran something of mine through the Flesch test (I think it was my dissertation) it was something like 23... I heard someone say just today that when younger we tried valiantly to stretch our ten-page papers to fifteen; now we need to learn how to cut them down to two. Bonnie Odiorne, Computers 4 Kids, Waterbury, CT bodiorne@c4k.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Kappra <kappra@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 11:14 AM Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1702] Re: [ Re: an observation re a recent posting > Thanks Dominique for the link. I had never heard of the Flesch scale > either. Now that I understand what it is, I don't understand the purpose of > the posting which first mentioned it. It seems to me, since most of us are > probably college graduates, that a readibility score of 19.1 would be > appropriate. I'm not really sure where the irony is in the observation of > the recent posting. I do feel, however, that this type of criticism (I am > reading it of criticism) is unnecessary and only serves to try to silence > those who might have valuable things to say. > > > on 6/16/01 8:46 PM, Dominique Brillanceau at dombril@teleport.com wrote: > > > In sixteen years of teaching ESL to adults, I have never heard of the Flesch > > Readibility scale. ( I wonder why....) The following link explains what it > > is, unless you already know. > > > > http://www.swt.edu/~df12/pr/tests.htm > > > > Dominique Brillanceau > > Portland CC, Oregon > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Tom Stuart <tstuart@wlsmail.org> > > To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> > > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 7:59 AM > > Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1699] Re: an observation re a recent posting > > > > > >> I just ran a readability evaluation on the nuts and bolts > >> content of a recent post to NIFL-EFF. I don't believe > >> it much matters which post. I don't think the results > >> are that atypical for a substantial portion of the body of > >> contributions here. > >> > >> Results were: > >> > >> "Words per sentence 39.3 > >> Passive sentences 37% > >> Flesh Reading Ease 19.1" > >> > >> Oh, the State of Indiana legislates a minimum Flesch > >> Reading Ease Score of 40 for insurance policies. > >> > >> Somehow, this seems salient and a tad ironic to me. > >> > >> Tom Stuart < tstuart@wlsmail.org > > >> > >> > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 13:30:07 EDT