[Phys-L] Re: Fog Index

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

I think the real issue is whether any simple index actually measures the
readability of a piece of text.  Comics can be just as challenging as
novels, but often they are not.  Conversely novels can be challenging, but
often they are not.  Just look at the reaction of students to simple 4 panel
comics.  In many cases they do not understand the jokes because they do not
have the necessary background, or thinking skills.  Foxtrot has some really
good physics examples.  So it is not the medium that is important, it is the
message.

Expository text is the real problem in physics.  Students are generally
trained by English teachers to read novels, but expository text is
neglected.  Most physics texts actually have very simple text once the
technical terms are removed.  As a result students do not build better
problem solving skills.  Most physics problems simple give the necessary
information so students know they have to use all of the information.  One
of the few texts that gives extra information is Minds on Physics.  At the
college level the materials from Minn created by the Hellers is very useful
because it gives extra information and a better storyline.  As a result the
problems challenge students to do expert like problem solving.

The reading formula encourages simplistic constructions which promote plug
and chug solving.  And the formula has absolutely no information about the
cognitive difficulty of what is being expressed.  One can pass a reading
formula at the 4th grade level with an explanation of NTN3, but the students
will still have no understanding.

These formulas have been abused, and as a result the reading level is being
depressed.  There are certainly other factors, but the reading formula is
part of the problem, not part of the solution.  A correct assessment of text
involves a trained person who understands both the cognitive difficulties of
the students AND the content that is being expressed.  Most textbook authors
do not qualify.  I would recommend anyone who wishes to see a good text look
at MOP as it has been well crafted.  The reader is not quite as good as the
activites, because it is written slightly too high.  The activities are
models for how to build understanding using a text.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> My sixth grade teacher called comic books mush books, because they
> turned our brains into mush.  Well, according to RH's post they're not a
> challenge or dumbed down.
>
> bc
>
> Brian Whatcott wrote:
>
> > At 10:50 PM 11/2/2005,  John Clement, you wrote:
> >
> >
> > > But James Joyce had an even higher index.  The suggested changes do
> somewhat
> > > convey the ideas, but completely omit the evidence.  Essentially the
> > > suggested changes turn something with persuasive evidence into a simple
> > > summary statement.  The last one implies a comparison, but with what?
> At
> > > least the previous reworking actually compares two results, but only
> > > qualitatively.
> > >
> > > In other words improving the fog index turns exact language into mush.
> No
> > > wonder student reading ability is going down.  We are feeding them mush
> > > instead of precise language.
> > >
> > > John M. Clement
> > > Houston, TX
> >
> >
> > I don't consider John's note above to be mush,
> >   even though it's fog index is < 8
> > Do you?
> >
> >
> > Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l