Return-Path: <root> Received: (from root@localhost) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VBrMw09631 for health-archive@nifl.gov; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:53:22 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200108311153.f7VBrMw09631@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from web11207.mail.yahoo.com (web11207.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.131.189]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f2RLqFg14576 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:52:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20010327215215.46174.qmail@web11207.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [205.211.62.36] by web11207.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:52:15 PST Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:52:15 -0800 (PST) From: Bertha Mo <bertiemo@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [NIFL-HEALTH:2961] NIFL-HEALTH digest 1031 To: nifl-health@nifl.gov, Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> In-Reply-To: <200103271923.f2RJNrg11940@literacy.nifl.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-From: root@literacy.nifl.gov Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:53:22 -0400 Resent-To: health-archive@nifl.gov Status: O Content-Length: 6660 Lines: 218 Jann Keenan: Thanks for reminding us to pre-test...and to ask people what they think we mean... Bertie Mo, Ph.D., MPH Medical Anthropologist --- nifl-health@nifl.gov wrote: > NIFL-HEALTH Digest 1031 > > Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) Re: Easy to read vs. grammatically incorre > by Dwyoho@aol.com > 2) Re: Contractions > by "Jann Keenan" <jkeenan@erols.com> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:26:57 EST > From: Dwyoho@aol.com > To: nifl-health@nifl.gov > Subject: Re: Easy to read vs. grammatically incorre > Message-ID: <e0.1244c2ad.27f0f201@aol.com> > > > --part1_e0.1244c2ad.27f0f201_boundary > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > In a message dated 03/20/2001 4:16:36 PM Eastern > Standard Time, > knonesuch@TheHub.capcollege.bc.ca writes: > > > > I don't know of any studies, but I notice that my > weakest students don't > > > > This is my experience too. As someone who directly > teaches reading skills, I > can share that the words "do" and "not" are taught > separately and before the > word "don't", although "don't" and "won't" are sight > words that come fairly > early. Other contractions, however, are more > problematic: "They're", for > example. As always in plain language, the use of > contractions depends on who > you are targeting (I suppose I should write "whom" > you are targeting!) My > advice is to avoid contactions if you are trying to > reach very low literacy > folks. > > Deborah W. Yoho > Co-moderator, NIFL Health Literacy Discussion Group > Chief Executive Officer > Greater Columbia Literacy Council > 921 Woodrow Street > Columbia, SC 29205 > 803/765-2555 dwyoho@aol.com > > --part1_e0.1244c2ad.27f0f201_boundary > Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3 > FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">In a > message dated 03/20/2001 4:16:36 PM Eastern Standard > Time, > <BR>knonesuch@TheHub.capcollege.bc.ca writes: > <BR> > <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 > FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> > <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: > #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: > 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I don't know of any studies, > but I notice that my weakest students don't > <BR>read contractions. </BLOCKQUOTE> > <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 > FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"> > <BR>This is my experience too. As someone who > directly teaches reading skills, I > <BR>can share that the words "do" and "not" are > taught separately and before the > <BR>word "don't", although "don't" and "won't" are > sight words that come fairly > <BR>early. Other contractions, however, are > more problematic: "They're", for > <BR>example. As always in plain language, the > use of contractions depends on who > <BR>you are targeting (I suppose I should write > "whom" you are targeting!) My > <BR>advice is to avoid contactions if you are trying > to reach very low literacy > <BR>folks. > <BR> > <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 > FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Deborah W. > Yoho > <BR>Co-moderator, NIFL Health Literacy Discussion > Group > <BR>Chief Executive Officer > <BR>Greater Columbia Literacy Council > <BR>921 Woodrow Street > <BR>Columbia, SC 29205 > <BR>803/765-2555 > dwyoho@aol.com</FONT></HTML> > > --part1_e0.1244c2ad.27f0f201_boundary-- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:07:52 -0800 > From: "Jann Keenan" <jkeenan@erols.com> > To: <nifl-health@nifl.gov>, > Subject: Re: Contractions > Message-ID: > <HFEOKEOKAENPEEILPJCFIEEMCAAA.jkeenan@erols.com> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C0B60E.E9623A20 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > To add to the mix . . . I've had good experiences > using contractions in my > writing.- even for folks with limited literacy. When > I test for reading > comprehension I find that people know that "don't" > means they aren't > supposed to do something. Also "cannot" reads like a > compound word and > "can't" just seems much more friendly in tone--one > of our health literacy > goals. I agree with Deb to steer clear of the > contraction "they're" (as it > is so easily confused with their and there and is > not a sight word). > Besides, it just plain old looks hard to read. > > In terms of grammar, I'm less concerned about > something being grammatically > correct if it is understandable. It took me a while > to get to this comfort > level as I remember enduring long hours at parties > while folks told me I > was promoting the "dumbing down" of America. I guess > I stopped going to some > of those parties and nowadays comfortably start > sentences with "AND." AND it > seems to work just fine in terms of readability for > my intended audience. > BUT, I sometimes find my clients are significantly > tougher to convince than > the targeted audience. > > With anything, I urge folks to pre-test. Field > testing is really the key to > determining if your message is coming across loud > and clear. Believe we'll > find out fairly quickly if our clients can > understand contractions if we ask > them. > > Warm regards, > Jann Keenan > > > > > > [Jann Keenan] -----Original Message----- > From: nifl-health@nifl.gov > [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of > Dwyoho@aol.com > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 11:28 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:2960] Re: Easy to read vs. > grammatically incorre > > > In a message dated 03/20/2001 4:16:36 PM Eastern > Standard Time, > knonesuch@TheHub.capcollege.bc.ca writes: > > > > I don't know of any studies, but I notice that > my weakest students don't > read contractions. > > > This is my experience too. As someone who > directly teaches reading > skills, I > can share that the words "do" and "not" are taught > separately and before > the > word "don't", although "don't" and "won't" are > sight words that come > fairly > early. Other contractions, however, are more > problematic: "They're", for > example. As always in plain language, the use of > contractions depends on > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:30 EST