Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fA4GPO014307; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:25:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:25:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2b.1db495df.2916c51e@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AWilder106@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3709] Re: reading IS comprehension X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 146 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 612 Lines: 15 Lucille, There are at least two trains of thought about the definition of reading. The first has reading as a technical skill--decoding. The second conflates reading and comprehension and calls that reading. I am saying that even reading with comprehension may not be a big enough definition, that the meaning of "discourse" may also enter into the larger definition of reading. There are different schools of thought on these definitions, there is not agreement on a single definition of "reading." The NALS very definitely uses the third definition of reading, reading as functional use. Andrea
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:03 EST