I was hoping to evoke some subscriber discussion in an earlier post about the following paragraph, the opening paragraph of The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner.
Hi Terry. I was not constructing meaning as I read the Faulkner excerpt. I knew every word. I can spell every word and define every word. What I was missing which prevented me from constructing meaning was the context. Also possibly related to my inability to "understand" what Faulkner wrote was perhaps my lack of background knowledge about the context; perhaps prior knowledge. As a student presented with this text I would have considered myself a failure to understand; I would have possibly concluded that I did not have "the right stuff" to be a successful student in that particular classroom or that possibly reading was not "my thing" and perhaps would never be my thing -- and if I looked around and found my classmates were constructing meaning and discussing the text with confidence I would have sunk even deeper in my seat and would have "checked out" psychologically of the educational venue I was in. This is kind of scary to me -- until I realize that all of my conclusions would have been erroneous and destructive. That discovery about what a student needs to construct meaning would excite me as a teacher because I would understand more profoundly where faux failure comes from and I would have the ability to liberate learners and keep learners on a strong and natural path to full literacy.
Hi Terry, thank you for sharing this link! This topic is really interesting for the article I’m preparing on readability metrics for my Substack and LinkedIn writing. One thing I call out in my draft is that all of the standard metrics only look at plain text. Not structure, not formatting, not use of visual aids, etc. This article calls out other critical aspects of comprehension. Do you mind if I link to it?
I’m intrigued by whether using readability metrics to encourage simplification is (always?) bad, or if perhaps they need to be applied with judgment (as is true for most tools). What do you think?
Truth be told, I think formulas work for ballpark purposes. I’ve always discussed them at least briefly oink reading courses, mostly to feature them as quick and dirty tools in the kit for teachers to assess texts tentatively. Each formula has its quirks. But they are a beginning point, probably no better than a teacher’s intuition. I think instructionally they open the door to thinking about the potential effects of syntax and vocabulary and for some teacher credential candidates constitute their first real opportunity to confront the critical pedagogical need: making useful reader-text matches. Much more potent predictors of readability are prior knowledge, interest, as you say “extratextual” factors like visuals (a well-done graph can open up even really demanding linguistic features). Sometimes an illustration makes all the difference, especially when the match is demanding. Researchers have studied the relationships between various types of textual terrain and reader responses and comprehension. Readers need to be taught in certain disciplines how to shuttle between the text itself and the visuals. Sometimes comprehension itself fails because of inadequate attention to the entire semiotic field of a text. In reading context is all. The view of autonomous texts is not helpful in most circumstances (all of the signals a reader needs is inside language. A lot of readers operate on this assumption. Let me know if any of this is relevant or just background. I’d be happy to elaborate. Please do link to any of my posts if/when they serve your purpose. It’s all free and public. I’m writing from a motive of public service, one of three prongs of evaluation of professors. Retirement doesn’t free me from that:)
This is helpful, Terry, thank you! As you noted, each formula has quirks and application areas. I’m mostly looking at readability metrics from the perspective of a writer wanting to improve my content before I publish it. As a writer, I can control some readability factors (including my use and design of graphs and diagrams, as well as how I choose and structure my wording), but not others (such as prior knowledge and interest). I’ll tag you on the reference to this post!
I think you’ll outgrow the formulas pretty quickly. I’d be very interested in learning from you what your experiences are. There is no downside to trying it. I went through a spell of a couple of months of fascination with them and taught them as a revision technique in a technical writing course. They have some utility there. Good luck!
Where’s the beauty of reading a good narrative come in? 😄
Hi Terry. I was not constructing meaning as I read the Faulkner excerpt. I knew every word. I can spell every word and define every word. What I was missing which prevented me from constructing meaning was the context. Also possibly related to my inability to "understand" what Faulkner wrote was perhaps my lack of background knowledge about the context; perhaps prior knowledge. As a student presented with this text I would have considered myself a failure to understand; I would have possibly concluded that I did not have "the right stuff" to be a successful student in that particular classroom or that possibly reading was not "my thing" and perhaps would never be my thing -- and if I looked around and found my classmates were constructing meaning and discussing the text with confidence I would have sunk even deeper in my seat and would have "checked out" psychologically of the educational venue I was in. This is kind of scary to me -- until I realize that all of my conclusions would have been erroneous and destructive. That discovery about what a student needs to construct meaning would excite me as a teacher because I would understand more profoundly where faux failure comes from and I would have the ability to liberate learners and keep learners on a strong and natural path to full literacy.
Hi Terry, thank you for sharing this link! This topic is really interesting for the article I’m preparing on readability metrics for my Substack and LinkedIn writing. One thing I call out in my draft is that all of the standard metrics only look at plain text. Not structure, not formatting, not use of visual aids, etc. This article calls out other critical aspects of comprehension. Do you mind if I link to it?
I’m intrigued by whether using readability metrics to encourage simplification is (always?) bad, or if perhaps they need to be applied with judgment (as is true for most tools). What do you think?
Truth be told, I think formulas work for ballpark purposes. I’ve always discussed them at least briefly oink reading courses, mostly to feature them as quick and dirty tools in the kit for teachers to assess texts tentatively. Each formula has its quirks. But they are a beginning point, probably no better than a teacher’s intuition. I think instructionally they open the door to thinking about the potential effects of syntax and vocabulary and for some teacher credential candidates constitute their first real opportunity to confront the critical pedagogical need: making useful reader-text matches. Much more potent predictors of readability are prior knowledge, interest, as you say “extratextual” factors like visuals (a well-done graph can open up even really demanding linguistic features). Sometimes an illustration makes all the difference, especially when the match is demanding. Researchers have studied the relationships between various types of textual terrain and reader responses and comprehension. Readers need to be taught in certain disciplines how to shuttle between the text itself and the visuals. Sometimes comprehension itself fails because of inadequate attention to the entire semiotic field of a text. In reading context is all. The view of autonomous texts is not helpful in most circumstances (all of the signals a reader needs is inside language. A lot of readers operate on this assumption. Let me know if any of this is relevant or just background. I’d be happy to elaborate. Please do link to any of my posts if/when they serve your purpose. It’s all free and public. I’m writing from a motive of public service, one of three prongs of evaluation of professors. Retirement doesn’t free me from that:)
This is helpful, Terry, thank you! As you noted, each formula has quirks and application areas. I’m mostly looking at readability metrics from the perspective of a writer wanting to improve my content before I publish it. As a writer, I can control some readability factors (including my use and design of graphs and diagrams, as well as how I choose and structure my wording), but not others (such as prior knowledge and interest). I’ll tag you on the reference to this post!
I think you’ll outgrow the formulas pretty quickly. I’d be very interested in learning from you what your experiences are. There is no downside to trying it. I went through a spell of a couple of months of fascination with them and taught them as a revision technique in a technical writing course. They have some utility there. Good luck!
Hi Terry, my article on the 16 metric I reviewed is here: https://open.substack.com/pub/karensmiley/p/16-readability-metrics-better-writing?r=3ht54r - more articles to follow on what I found when I used 7 tools to generate 6 of the metrics on 5 example posts. Any and all feedback is welcome!