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 g6JHkYX08295; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <71A25E80.3E4719A1.0070C277@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: LChenven@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4006] Re: Readability X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 522 Lines: 2 Absolutely. I'm not sure what the conundrum is, however. Readability formulas are good tools but nothing (in my mind) tells you as much about a reader as reading with them, talking with them about their reading issues, and doing a miscue analysis. So maybe I am missing something. For me readability formulas and clear language practice are most significant when I am trying to decide whether a text is at an appropriate level for a group I am working with and when I am trying to rewrite something to make it clear.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:16 EST