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 g6J2JkX14624; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001701c22eca$6aad02b0$eb82f3ce@DeepThought> 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: "Woods" <woods@ncia.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4000] Re: Readibility X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 798 Lines: 16 I remember some of that discussion about grade levels too. As I recall there was concern over using grade levels to describe readers because of the possible embarassment and feelings of inadequacy caused when we say an adult reads at the 3rd grade level. I use a readability formula on a random passage in a book to get a rough gauge of its suitability for a student, not for content, of course, but for difficulty level. Mostly I rely on my gut, but confirm it with the formula. I use the Flesch Kincaid readability score that comes with my MSWord wordprocessor. I type in a couple paragraphs of text and run it through the readability statistics that can be set to run when you do a grammar check. This method is a lot easier than using a "manual" check such as the Fry readability chart. Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:16 EST