1Abrahamray
how would the magaigment of this site be if the reading levels of the various books be posted on this site? particularly for children's books? for example "let's fly Wilber and Orville!" has a reading level of 3.5. again that's just a example.
2jjwilson61
LT already has Lexile Measure that is a column that you can choose on the Add Books page. The other reading level measurements are from companies that LT would have to pay to get the information which is unlikely.
3MurphyHome
Having individual fields for the various different kinds of reading Levels (AR, GRL, ect) in addition to the Lexile field would be very helpful. Even if it is not automatically populated and the user has to manually enter the values, being able to filter and sort on these ranges would be beyond useful and wonderful.
4MarthaJeanne
Each extra field in the database makes the database slower. One field for reading level is already controversial. You can enter your preferred system in comments, as a tag, in Other call number, if you aren't using that already.
5paradoxosalpha
I would totally use tags for that (AR, GRL, etc.), if it were something I wanted.
6GraceCollection
Personally, I would prefer if the field was simply 'reading level' and allowed free text. Lexile is a registered trademark, and a user only get 5 free searches per month of their database to find out that information for books. In addition, from my understanding of how Lexile works, publishers must pay for each book they want in that database — meaning there are far more books in the world which do not have a Lexile measure than those that do, especially books that were never published in or did not take off in the United States.
While 'AR' has its issues and limits, I much prefer that system, as far more books, especially volumes from the 60s-90s or thereabouts, have their 'AR' level (or similar/translatable numbers) publicly available — sometimes printed on the back cover or among the publishing information.
And the next person to come along may prefer something other than AR, which is why I think it would be much better (for those of us who use reading level information at all) to have a free space instead of forcing that information into the framework of Lexile.
While 'AR' has its issues and limits, I much prefer that system, as far more books, especially volumes from the 60s-90s or thereabouts, have their 'AR' level (or similar/translatable numbers) publicly available — sometimes printed on the back cover or among the publishing information.
And the next person to come along may prefer something other than AR, which is why I think it would be much better (for those of us who use reading level information at all) to have a free space instead of forcing that information into the framework of Lexile.
7MarthaJeanne
There are many users who tag AR levels, for example https://www.librarything.com/tag/AR%203.7. If you put that tag first, you can even sort your books by it.
You do not have to look up your lexiles on their website, as they self populate here.
Of those users who even have English language children's books, most have no use for any reading level, many more are strongly opposed to it. Tim made a decision a long time ago about how to try to accommodate those who want it.
You do not have to look up your lexiles on their website, as they self populate here.
Of those users who even have English language children's books, most have no use for any reading level, many more are strongly opposed to it. Tim made a decision a long time ago about how to try to accommodate those who want it.
8bnielsen
>7 MarthaJeanne: Ah, that's a good hint. So looking at a work's tag cloud and looking for "AR digits.digit" might give a useful indication of reading level. (I'm trying to see how many different categories of tags, we use here at LT, so that's one more :-) (My idea is to look at the large tag clouds and see if I can sort out what kind of tags are used. Fun way to spend a rainy day.)
9GraceCollection
>7 MarthaJeanne: You do not have to look up your lexiles on their website, as they self populate here.
I have had Lexiles self-populated only a handful of times, and I have over a thousand books in my LT library. The vast majority of the time, they do not self-populate. That's the only reason I ever looked them up in the first place, as I do not generally use Lexile.
Of those users who even have English language children's books, most have no use for any reading level, many more are strongly opposed to it.
I haven't met very many people who are 'strongly opposed' to having reading levels at all, but when you have hundreds of children's books, there becomes a necessity to sort them somehow. And while I don't separate what is 'AR 5.5' from what is 'AR 7.0,' I still need some way to differentiate a book that is appropriate for a middle school audience from a book that is appropriate for a preschooler. I don't have any particular desire to shelve The Very Hungry Caterpillar next to Ender's Game, but that's just me.
As for tags, while seeing others' tags have been helpful in sorting my library, some people don't want to cloud up tags with information that is better suited as its own data field. At the end of the day, we could theoretically get rid of every data field except for cover image, book id, and work id, and use tags for every other piece of information, but some of us do not enjoy putting disparate categories of information into the same data field. That's why all the other fields exist in the first place.
I have had Lexiles self-populated only a handful of times, and I have over a thousand books in my LT library. The vast majority of the time, they do not self-populate. That's the only reason I ever looked them up in the first place, as I do not generally use Lexile.
Of those users who even have English language children's books, most have no use for any reading level, many more are strongly opposed to it.
I haven't met very many people who are 'strongly opposed' to having reading levels at all, but when you have hundreds of children's books, there becomes a necessity to sort them somehow. And while I don't separate what is 'AR 5.5' from what is 'AR 7.0,' I still need some way to differentiate a book that is appropriate for a middle school audience from a book that is appropriate for a preschooler. I don't have any particular desire to shelve The Very Hungry Caterpillar next to Ender's Game, but that's just me.
As for tags, while seeing others' tags have been helpful in sorting my library, some people don't want to cloud up tags with information that is better suited as its own data field. At the end of the day, we could theoretically get rid of every data field except for cover image, book id, and work id, and use tags for every other piece of information, but some of us do not enjoy putting disparate categories of information into the same data field. That's why all the other fields exist in the first place.
10humouress
>9 GraceCollection: Unfortunately I have come across people who strongly object to reading levels (along the lines of 'how dare you tell me/ my child/ any child what I/ they are permitted to read') when I was a volunteer librarian at a (sadly, now defunct) club library. But, as you say, you don't really want to be shelving Spot lift the flap books next to, say Deathly Hallows. Mind you, now that I only have to worry about the books at home and my kids are teenagers, I'm not too fussed about reading levels. I'm just lucky if they read at all these days *sigh*.
At the club library, we had different coloured tape on the spines for different reading groups (I think we had yellow, red, blue, green, black) so I entered those as tags plus whatever reading level information I could discover from the internet for that book.
You could try one of the librarian groups on LT for ideas.
At the club library, we had different coloured tape on the spines for different reading groups (I think we had yellow, red, blue, green, black) so I entered those as tags plus whatever reading level information I could discover from the internet for that book.
You could try one of the librarian groups on LT for ideas.
11GraceCollection
>10 humouress: Ah. Fortunately I haven't run into those types. I have known some people who are in the opposite camp, and would never allow a nine-year-old to check out Harry Potter because it is too high of a reading level for a nine-year-old to ever comprehend! Reading levels should always be suggestions. For that matter, I've seen some adults that may need to return to Spot!
In any case, I'm not looking for advice on this at this time. I just wish there were more options built into LT for those of us who don't want to pay for Lexile.
In any case, I'm not looking for advice on this at this time. I just wish there were more options built into LT for those of us who don't want to pay for Lexile.
12BooksandMovies
Reading levels were a thing when I was young.
Reading levels in many respects were a good thing. This along with really good English department in our public school system really helped many students.
For intermediate to strong readers it was a competition when we were in elementary and middle school. Teachers never blocked students from reading below or above level. Many of us by the time we were 6th or 7th grade we were scoring a reading level on Ohio test of 12th grade. Then when we got to middle school we will drilled in Grammer, had our literature world expanded, and wrote numerous critically scrutinized papers.
The negative I saw was those who did progress at reading as quickly and went to the reading room for assistance, felt there was a stigma associated to this and the reading level they were currently reading. My parents tried to teach me that we all have strong subjects and others we have to work harder. The school could have reduced the stigma that some students felt coming from some teachers and some fellow students.
Reading levels in many respects were a good thing. This along with really good English department in our public school system really helped many students.
For intermediate to strong readers it was a competition when we were in elementary and middle school. Teachers never blocked students from reading below or above level. Many of us by the time we were 6th or 7th grade we were scoring a reading level on Ohio test of 12th grade. Then when we got to middle school we will drilled in Grammer, had our literature world expanded, and wrote numerous critically scrutinized papers.
The negative I saw was those who did progress at reading as quickly and went to the reading room for assistance, felt there was a stigma associated to this and the reading level they were currently reading. My parents tried to teach me that we all have strong subjects and others we have to work harder. The school could have reduced the stigma that some students felt coming from some teachers and some fellow students.
