Hello, All-- I feel like an interloper because I've been reading your thread on fluency but I'm only now responding. I'm amazed at how insightful you all are. I'm just going to offer a few observations here. first, as a teacher for almost 30 years, I totally agree with most of you. I want to offer not just my opinion, but how the research backs up what you are saying. I also want to speculate as to why fluency, as Readinglady notes-- is suddenly such a hot topic.
You are right. Bill is right on. I think this big hoopla over fluency does indeed come down to what you see as the ultimate goal of reading. What research shows (and I can give you the federal research to back this up--it's in my book) is that there is a CORRELATION between fluency and comprehension very early on in first grade, and to an extent in second grade when kids are first learning to read. Let me just clutter this with a little statistical truth: Correlation does not mean CAUSATION-- in other words, just because there is a relationship between fluency and comprehension, it doesn't mean that fluency CAUSES comprehension. In fact, the reverse may well be true and as Amy and Christine Rebera noted in their post-- comprehension impacts fluency. The research also fits then, with what Readinglady says about emphasizing punctuation, phrasing etc. What the research shows-- and what my book explains in more detail is that if you focus on fluency-- alone--- you will lose comprehension. In fact, the federal researchers note that after first grade and early reading instruction- the correlation between fluency and comprehension drops to near zero! That is not me-- that is the data from the federal research. Furthermore, past the point when kids are first learning to read, too much focus on fluency is actually counterproductive! This also fits with what you all have noted on here. If you time kids with a stopwatch and force them to read nonsense syllables or even text, "faster, faster faster"-- then what we do is give them the message that reading is about speed-- not about thinking and interacting with the text. Good readers vary their reading rate. You do it. I do it. You may well have slowed down when you came to the sentence where I talked about statistics because maybe you needed to think about it a little harder. So logically and as is supported by the research-- we are way off by putting the focus on speed. Again, this is supported by the federal research. This is too long already but I want to give you an example from the kids we work with here at Fresno State. We work with kids with reading problems and the problems we see are often direct results of the methods being used in the schools. For example, when schools started using a lot of decodable texts, our kids would look at the first letter or two and toss in any old word whether it made sense or not because they were reading nonsensical books and had no expectation that print was supposed to make sense. Now, we have THAT heartbreaking phenomenon and on top of it---now that districts are using DIBELS or other methods that focus on reading fast-- we have kids who just rattle off text at a mile a minute and look up at us with a big grin, so proud of themselves-- but they cannot tell you what they've read. On top of that, we see the affects of AR compounding the speed/don't think issue-- because so many of our kids can rattle off every single detail in story-- the color of someone's dress etc but cannot for their lives tell you what a story is really about. There is no big picture for them. Only little pieces. And that is compounded with the fact that fluency tests and AR both put the focus on reading fast (the more books you read) the more points you get-- instead of interacting with the text, discussing it and enriching these kids' lives. In other words, real life totally supports what the federal research tells us. So bottom-line is what's happened is that as with phonics, a bunch of people have taken small results that only occur in a narrow window of time in a kid's life-- and turned into a cure all. Instead of being a part of the process-- fluency and phonics have shifted so radically to the foreground that they have become the GOAL of reading (as Bill noted)-- As to why the big push for fluency raised by Readinglady and Amy and Christine Rebera-- as with phonics-- it is about packaged programs and assessments and selling them. I don't want to get into it right now but in Congress as you may or may not know, the creators of DIBELS (Edward Kame'enui, Deborah Simmons, Roland Good) have been exposed for their conflcts of interest. They got themselves on Reading First expert panels and used their positions to force schools to use their programs and assessments. I really don't want to go into the nasty details here but I think the question Readinglady suggest (We didn't make a big deal about fluency years ago-- so why now) is answered by the fact that now it's a big program. Also, Timothy Shanahan, president of IRA, who was also on the National Reading Panel and who is also on the President's National Literacy Panel has his own fluency program that he has used his position to promote. I hate to be so negative, but these are the facts. So in other words, schools have been forced to move fluency and phonics to the foreground in direct contradiction the to federal government's own research. I don't get into any of the conflicts of interest etc in my new book. I just report what the research says and how we can use it (methods). I hope this doesn't offend anyone. There's a lot more to this but I have cluttered up your mailbox and probably put you all to sleep if you're even still reading. Sorry! Elaine Garan On Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 08:01 PM, Amy and Christine Rebera wrote: > hmmm...there is more going on while reading, obviously, then when > speaking. > I would not think that the exact same rate should apply. I also think > that > reading for a purpose is key. If you need to read something > "fluently" to > understand it, why then you should read it several times until you can > read > it fluently. I think the key is to teach students the metacognitive > strategies they need so they can assess their own understanding of the > text > as they are reading. We need to teach them to realize when the meaning > breaks down for them. I guess it all depends on how much they are > struggling with the text. But, a student who gets a low three on the > ELA....it may be that you should do an item analysis with her test and > see > what she is missing. I know that comprehension will come up...but what > about it? My guess is that the fluency will come when you work on > other > comprehension strategies. When I listen to my second grade students > read, I > know who needs fluency work- per se. But, until I start probing into > their > understanding, I am not sure if their thoughts are fluently moving as > fast > as they can word call. I have a student now who reads beautifully. > But, > when I ask her what she thinks about what is going on in her book, she > has > nothing to say. She can answer specific questions about the text, but > any > deeper meanings or "thick" questions seem to baffle her. But, there > is no > way that I would focus on fluency with her. She is reading above > benchmark > and answering basic comprehension questions. She can retell events > from the > story in a sequence. But, she doesn't identify with the story at all. > Her > background knowledge is limited and someone did a lot of decoding work > with > her....in K and 1...now I need to teach her to think :). Anyway...I > always > do what each student needs the best I can....as I know we all are > challenged > to do. Maybe I am really missing the boat on the fluency thing...but I > probably belong with the "old school" way of teaching...even though I > have > only been teaching for 8 years. I have a friend who...taught me so > much > when I took over in her classroom. She retired and I took her class > over > mid-year as my first teaching position. She said, "You will find that > programs and ideas about teaching come around and come around. > Guaranteed, > if you teach as long as I have, it will come around a couple times. > Hang on > to what you know to be good practice for you and for your kids. Stay > flexible....calm...and wait. It will come around again." > > > C > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:18 PM > Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Re-replies to my fluency v. comprehension > > >> I teach at a middle school and we do fluency for the first few >> minutes of >> class. Kids are paired off and it takes about 3-5 minutes. The book >> we >> use >> is SIX MINUTE SOLUTIONS. It's great for fluency. >> >> The problem with discussing fluency is that many people put the cart >> before >> the horse. We aren't testing for fluency, but ultimately for >> COMPREHENSION. >> Fluency only helps. Too many kids can't read at fluent levels, but >> they >> can >> understand someone speaking at 200 words a minute. If they can >> comprehend >> spoken language at 200 wpm, they should be able to read and >> comprehend at >> 200 wpm since it is the same language only the words are "spoken" in >> their >> heads. Other factors such as decoding skills come into play, but we >> have >> too many teachers telling students to slow down, when, in fact, they >> should >> be reading faster. Many of my students find that reading faster helps >> their >> comprehension. If it doesn't help, then we address background >> knowledge >> and >> decoding skills.... >> Bill >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Carol Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:51 PM >> Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Re-replies to my fluency v. comprehension >> >> >>> I agree that there is a correlation with fluency and comprehension. >>> Students need both, especially at the primary grades. >>> My question is about middle school. >>> With a much shorter period for literacy instruction--42 minutes per >>> day for reading, how much fluency is necessary for students reading >>> at grade level. >>> For struggling readers, I know teachers need to do further diagnosis >>> to determine why students are struggling. >>> But I'm at a loss whether I encourage any fluency or oral reading at >>> the junior high. >>> Any suggestions? >>> Thanks, >>> Carol >>> LA Content Specialist, K-8 >>> La Grange, Il >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
