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 fAT5wD008134; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:58:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:58:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <MABBKFDHLFFKFFADLABNGEBFCEAA.lpbml@pacbell.net> 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: lpbml <lpbml@pacbell.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3468] Re: Readability formulas and evaluation X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Status: O Content-Length: 2757 Lines: 63 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:44 EST