In my very humble opinion having studied NAEP results over the decades, those tests show that children have always decoded pretty well. What doesn't change is their ability to go on and read more complex text and to read beyond a very literal level. I'm with Lori on what she thinks about fluency. I think it's deeply intertwined with simply growing as a reader with teachers who understand how to teach children to read for meaning from meaning at the decoding level to meaning at text level. The research on comprehension says that in spite of knowing that comprehension strategies need to be taught (as in Mosaics and this list) most teachers don't know how to teach comprehension. Unless children understand how to get at meaning through reading, unless they have the problem solving strategies to do so, why would they want to read? And unless they want to read, they won't get the extended practice they need to become fluent. So of course we do pay attention to fluency but not in isolation or as a silver bullet. Am I making any sense?
On 5/23/07 4:05 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In a message dated 5/22/2007 8:07:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I've been teaching a pretty long time. It seems curious to me that in >> the early 90s, nobody "practiced fluency" and nobody tested it either, >> yet we managed to have children learn to read, talk about what they had >> read, write book reports and essays about books they had read, etc. > > > > Just to continue this thread. We need to look at the date. Children have > not been making strong literacy gains since the 1950s. The research is there > and clearly shows this. The amount of children in this country that are > illiterate is staggering. The number of children who do not read on grade > level > by the end of 4th grade is also shocking. We can't say that in the 90s > children learned to read better with the methods we were using. That may be > true > in one small portion of the population, but not for the entire country. I > agree that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water which many > times we do in education. What all the research proves matters MOST to > children > is the TEACHER they have NOT the program or method. What works for all > children is having a teacher that knows what they need and is able to deliver > the > instruction using whatever method works for that child. > > Laura > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. > _______________________________________________ > Mosaic mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. > > Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. > _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
