I tried, really.

I guess it didn't take.

 Reply

My theory is that much of what we call "literacy" is heavily context-dependent -- and institutional attempts to incorporate context in tests of literacy don't exactly inspire confidence in me.

I used to teach at-risk junior-high-schoolers. Many would have been identified as problem readers on tests. Yet if I had been asked to rate their real-world literacy levels, I would certainly have taken into consideration their abilities to grasp the meanings of texts displayed in video games or on internet sites that they frequented. Yet institutional evaluations of literacy almost always omit such real-world abilities.

I also question the quality of the institutional writings on which people are supposed to test their reading abilities. My favorite example of institutional writings are the disclosure pamphlets you get from your bank when you open a checking account. (When I worked at a bank, I used to contribute to the writing of those awful trainwrecks.) I propose that someone who decided to put zero effort into deciphering those is making a rational decision.

This isn't a response to the linked article, which seems low on details anyway. I just generally tune out reports of this type, because the likelihood that they accurately describe a real phenomenon (which may nevertheless exist) just seems overwhelmingly remote to me.

 Reply