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 f9PK3t001421; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20011025155345.020e5dd0@postoffice.brown.edu>
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: Christina Zarcadoolas <Christina_Zarcadoolas@brown.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3425] Re: Literacy testing in a health care
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Status: O
Content-Length: 2461
Lines: 74
--=====================_22020265==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 05:16 PM 10/24/01 -0400, you wrote:
To add my voice to what is being said about "testing" literacy levels
among folks - particularly adding to what Audrey R. mentioned:
We so often conflate a number of important things:
1. testing literacy is often done out of context of use -
language hardly ever works this way
2. we generally ignore the importance of using spoken / oral
language literacy almost completely - this one's most odd because we know
that people can speak and understand language at much higher levels than
they can read it.
3. we confuse literacy and health literacy quite a bit
Needless to say, I think testing is problematic at best and outright
dangerous at worst.
But other than that Mrs. Lincoln,......
Chris
Christina Zarcadoolas, PhD
Center for Environmental Studies
Box 1943
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912
(401) 863-7347
fax (401) 863-3503
email: caz@brown.edu
--=====================_22020265==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
At 05:16 PM 10/24/01 -0400, you wrote:<br>
<font size=2>To add my voice to what is being said about
"testing" literacy levels among folks - particularly
adding to what Audrey R. mentioned:<br>
<br>
We so often conflate a number of important things: <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>1.
testing literacy is often done out of context of use - language hardly
ever works this way<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>2.
we generally ignore the importance of using spoken / oral language
literacy almost completely - this one's most odd because we know that
people can speak and understand language at much higher levels than they
can read it. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>3.
we confuse literacy and health literacy quite a bit <br>
<br>
Needless to say, I think testing is problematic at best and outright
dangerous at worst. <br>
<br>
But other than that Mrs. Lincoln,......<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris <br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Christina Zarcadoolas, PhD <br>
Center for Environmental Studies<br>
Box 1943<br>
Brown University <br>
Providence, RI 02912<br>
(401) 863-7347<br>
fax (401) 863-3503<br>
email: caz@brown.edu</font></html>
--=====================_22020265==_.ALT--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:43 EST