4 ms·

Simple fact trivia won't do anything to demonstrate a person has understood the article, merely that he read it. It's the fundamental difference between functi

Simple fact trivia won't do anything to demonstrate a person has understood the article, merely that he read it. It's the fundamental difference between functional illiteracy and "plain" illiteracy. This difference shows up all the time when analyzing data because some jurisdiction will only report the illiteracy number while some other will include the functional illiteracy as well.

gleenn 9y ago
I think you're ignoring that many people might not even read the article at all. Proving comprehension sounds incredibly hard; proving someone has at least tried would probably be a huge step in the right direction compared to the mayhem which is most comments online.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago
  > I think you're ignoring that many people might not even read the article at al I rarely read the articles posted on HN. The discussion is frequently much more interesting and often more enlightening. I generally only read the article if the filter of other people's comments suggests that it would be worth my time. I think I am probably not alone in this.
- warrenm 9y ago
  Proving real comprehension would be (is?) hard/impossible in a constrained format such as this would have to be (pointy-clicky multiple choice). Proving someone "tried* is also [nearly] impossible here: just take standard test-taking strategies for standardized tests of reading comprehension, and apply them to this context (because that's all this is, but not even done by people whose entire job is to make "good" tests)
warrenm 9y ago
It's like learning how to answer standardized tests: the "reading comprehension" questions are usually among the worst offenders. The questions are asked in the order they appear in the passage (eg, the third question will not cover something prior to the first question, chronologically in the passage, unless it is an over-arching question). You can dramatically increase your "reading comprehension" scores by knowing things like this: and the same would be true of "questions about about the article" before commenting - just know to skim for the handful of pertinent keywords, answer, and move on. I have fantastic reading comprehension from a standardized test point of view - I was always able to finish the section well before the time limit. But I also knew I didn't have to actually follow the directions - I didn't need to read the passage, I needed to find the answers: a very different, and far simpler, task. That's what this would become.

gleenn 9y ago

I think you're ignoring that many people might not even read the article at all. Proving comprehension sounds incredibly hard; proving someone has at least tried would probably be a huge step in the right direction compared to the mayhem which is most comments online.

kwhitefoot 9y ago
> I think you're ignoring that many people might not even read the article at al I rarely read the articles posted on HN. The discussion is frequently much more interesting and often more enlightening. I generally only read the article if the filter of other people's comments suggests that it would be worth my time. I think I am probably not alone in this.
warrenm 9y ago
Proving real comprehension would be (is?) hard/impossible in a constrained format such as this would have to be (pointy-clicky multiple choice). Proving someone "tried* is also [nearly] impossible here: just take standard test-taking strategies for standardized tests of reading comprehension, and apply them to this context (because that's all this is, but not even done by people whose entire job is to make "good" tests)

warrenm 9y ago

It's like learning how to answer standardized tests: the "reading comprehension" questions are usually among the worst offenders. The questions are asked in the order they appear in the passage (eg, the third question will not cover something prior to the first question, chronologically in the passage, unless it is an over-arching question). You can dramatically increase your "reading comprehension" scores by knowing things like this: and the same would be true of "questions about about the article" before commenting - just know to skim for the handful of pertinent keywords, answer, and move on. I have fantastic reading comprehension from a standardized test point of view - I was always able to finish the section well before the time limit. But I also knew I didn't have to actually follow the directions - I didn't need to read the passage, I needed to find the answers: a very different, and far simpler, task. That's what this would become.