Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4DGAKC18597; Tue, 13 May 2003 12:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 12:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <D74DDBFF74F65945B233D80D11E52C095FE1F8@cccmail> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Virginia Tardaewether" <tarv@chemeketa.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:2844] RE: are there reading "truths" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 1967 Lines: 57 Personally, I did not learn to read in a linear fashion. I have not found that students have a lot of trouble with the techno-language of the internet. Instead they are facinated and ask lots of questions and spend hours writing and reading in chat rooms. IS the language there proper English? No but are they learning to read and write? Yes -----Original Message----- From: Christina Zarcadoolas [mailto:Christina_Zarcadoolas@brown.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 06:30 To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:2843] are there reading "truths" At 12:48 AM 5/13/03 -0400, you wrote: Steve, Thanks for the resource site. I'd like to think about Tom's question about linearity. I too keep getting back to print (sorry - the linguist beast rears its head to often) - but as I read these interesting posts I'm reminded of a major issue about what we know and don't know about low lit readers. Both NALS and the clear language movement have been important in putting literacy on the radar screen in some spheres. But the by-catch, if you will, has been a tenacious movement to simplify vocabulary and sentence structure. So we talk about easy to read materials highlighting these aspects of the content/message. And then we test these materials, and lo and behold, our patient focus group or cognitive testing participants demonstrate that, indeed, they can read the revised material with more comprehension. But then along comes this wonderful format - hypertext) that in some ways, more accurately mimics what real people do in real reading settings. They jump forward and loop back; they scan; they read on until things make sense. ( Long established as fluent reading strategies among reading educators in the 60s and 70s. If we begin with overly narrow assumptions about the linearity of print and try to accommodate them in hypertext - seems like we come to no good. Anybody else suspicious about this? Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:30 EST