Jump to content

Talk:Lexile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Point of View?

[edit]

The whole Lexile page really reads like some corporate ad for the product, with lots of weasily-sounding phrases; and nearly all the links are to the lexile.com domain. I think it deserves a look-over by an expert in education.

Instead of these vague generalities, please give some specifics as to the weasel words and perfect image portrayals so these can be corrected. Thanks. WPFisherJr (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point, as one example, to the highly selective text picked from the NCES report which appeared (until my recent edit) to be one-sided in favour of, and highly supportive of, Lexile ranking. In fact, the report has a rich range of critiques and criticisms. It seems to indicate that the main application should be the selection of passages of text for reading assessments, not the selection of books for reading. I'd say that even after my edit, the NCES report section is probably still unbalanced overly in favour of Lexile. More honest presentation of findings from independent evaluations is a must. Djlivi (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, prior to today, instead of referencing the Walpole study, it was reported only second hand via Mesmer, but with only the positive finding reported. The study also had a less positive finding that for some reason was not mentioned. For balance, both findings are now mentioned. Djlivi (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness sake... yet another example. I didn't have high hopes for the Common Core, but reading the cited document it is clear that the Common Core standards DO NOT recommend using Lexile scores for choosing appropriate reading for anyone at grade 6 or above. It says so very explicitly. Yet again, the previous version of the text managed to imply the the Common Core was very positive about the use of Lexile scores without mention of any limitations or crit. Enough already! Djlivi (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no direct correspondence to grade level." is clearly contradicted by the chart and statistics at this web page: http://www.lexile.com/about-lexile/grade-equivalent/grade-equivalent-chart/. Maybe the author of this sentence meant to write something like, "There is a direct correspondence to grade level, but individuals show a lot of variation". (Jaredroach (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

"The maker claims that noting the Lexile measure of a text can assist in selecting “targeted” materials that present an appropriate level of challenge for a reader — not too difficult to be frustrating, yet difficult enough to challenge a reader and encourage reading growth." needs a reference, and rewritten in encyclopedic tone. (Jaredroach (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

The lexile numbers are all broken links. 98.15.213.206 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

The 'See also' section has become over-long. I removed a book retailer (Barnes and Noble) because I could find no justification for its inclusion. The book publishers are marginal and I would suggest removing them as well. A Softer Answer (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book publishers listed all use Lexiles. Any number of other Wikipedia pages include links to other sites in which the subject issue, product, or person is mentioned or involved. If propriety suggests that fewer links be given, that ought to be proposed in edits. WPFisherJr (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

The criticisms section ends with a claim that the company requires payment for applying the text complexity formula, but the readability determination is made by the Lexile Analyzer listed under free tools. Perhaps the criticisms should be augmented with a statement as to the free availability of the Lexile Analyzer to researchers.

FYI, I would add this change myself but am a former employee of the Lexile company, and continue ongoing research collaborations with the staff there, so anything I say will likely be interpreted as favorably biased. In my experience, however, there are very few products as widely used in education that are as well researched or scientifically substantiated as Lexiles. The problems that arise are generally related to assuming (a) that reading choices can be determined by quantitative information alone (not the position of the Lexile maker) and (b) that quantification captures all relevant information about all possible texts (also not the position of the Lexile maker). There will always be those who see nothing but nails when they hold a hammer, or who can turn anything into a hammer when confronted with a nail, but the value of a tool is usually maximized when its use is restricted to the specific domain in which it is fit to purpose. WPFisherJr (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More correctly, it should make clear that the cost is not for analyzing the complexity of texts, but for the software to assess the Lexile score of students. According to the Mesmer book (cited elsewhere in the article) "the SRI, a computerized inventory offering Lexile levels, costs several thousand dollars" (page 59). 82.9.23.192 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete criticism?

[edit]

The criticisms section includes this statement:

Dr. Hiebert also demonstrated that slight changes in punctuation, such as changing commas to periods, resulted in “significant reclassification on the LS [Lexile Scale]. [23]

It isn't clear how this is a criticism. Changing commas to periods in almost any sentence is going to result in grammatically incorrect "sentences" that are, incidentally, markedly shorter than the original one. Since significantly shorter sentences are much easier to read than the original long ones, it would seem that no change in the Lexile for text changed in that way would be more of a basis for criticism than thinking the Lexile should stay the same.

WPFisherJr (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this crit is mentioned explicitly in the NCES report quoted elsewhere in the article which explains that it is trivial to generate grammatically readable long sentences in many examples by simply changing periods to commas. So the crit seems quite valid. Perhaps we should add this other example to strengthen the case for the criticism? Djlivi (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American

[edit]

I gather that Lexiles are an American thing? If so, this should be made clear in the first sentence. If not, this article seems slanted towards a uniquely American interpretation. --seberle (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, it is not limited to the U.S.: http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/21630/metametrics-coo-visits-korea-promote-english-reading-index-lexile-measures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.27.211 (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Include Example Scores

[edit]

It would be helpful to include the scores of some well-know books to help us calibrate and comprehend the scale being used. For example, what is the Lexile score of Huckleberry Finn, Harry Potter, The Great Gatsby, or the Cat in the Hat? ~ --Lbeaumont (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I see you are way ahead of me on this. Sorry to have jumped the gun.

What is the lowest score?

[edit]

"The Lexile scale runs from below 0L (Lexile) to above 2000L.[5] Scores 0L and below are reported as BR (Beginning Reader)." This seems to be a self-contradiction: If the scale starts at 0L, how can there be scores below 0L? Kdammers (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Since the readers and books are placed on the same scale, they must be using the Rasch model to analyse the text difficulty and person ability. Using this model, the actual scale is arbitrary so they have probably set zero at the point at which the measurement error is acceptable. Unlike classical test theory, the error of measurement increases as you move away from the median value.[1] This means that below zero, they would be unable to accurately predict values- so simply report it as BR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.106.66 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the cited source and clarified this information. 0L and 2000L are not absolute values, Lexile measures can be above or below these numbers. Rjradic (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt204f.htm
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lexile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lexile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lexile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lexile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lexile&oldid=1203279918"