I totally agree with your definition of fluency-- that it must be inseparable from comprehension. However, I would note that assessments such as DIBELS and some fluency programs define fluency as a surface skill in that it is about speed and automatic decoding that sometimes doesn't even include connected text much less comprehension. If I'm understanding your posts, you believe that fluency and comprehension are reciprocal--that each influences the other. That's what the research shows too. The difference in what many teachers are being told is that if we train kids to read quickly, comprehension will follow. Actually, the research shows that's not the case. Comprehension does not just suddenly pop up when a child can read a passage flawlessly.
Another point, the population that suffers the most from a big focus on decoding and quick reading are ELL's. The federal government recently released a large study by the National Panel on Minority -Children and Youth. One of its major findings was that an intense focus on decoding, grammar and other surface skills for kids whose second language is English-- when those kids didn't have a strong oral language base-- was this: those kids sounded as good as those whose first language was English up until about third or fourth grade and then there is a huge plummet. Same for kids who have been focused on a lot of phonics without real engagement with text. In other words, that is what the Panel say is the cause of the infamous "fourth-grade slump" So what you are saying is totally in sync with the data. In fact, it's really remarkable how much of a convergence there is in the results of major federal studies-- the NRP Report, the Report on Minority-Children and Youth-- Jean Chall's big phonics study too. The difference though is that the way fluency is treated in programs and assessments doesn't approach fluency from the same very astute conceptual base that you do. So the definitions of fluency are not the same for you or for me as they are in a lot of mandated programs and assessments. You're right. But what teachers, especially new teachers who don't have an experiential frame of reference-- is based on a much narrower definition of fluency. On Friday, May 25, 2007, at 04:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 5/23/2007 9:32:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > nsion. Unless children understand how to get at meaning > through reading, unless they > > > But I really think we are saying the same thing. I am saying that a > "fluent" reader is a reader that "understands" what they read. We > need to teach > this, therefore we need to teach students to be "fluent" readers. I > think we > are getting lost in the idea that fluency equals timing the reading. > Fluency > instruction is far more than just that. It is teaching children to > read well > and make meaning of the text. So aren't we all saying the same > thing? Let's > not get hung up on terminology. > > Laura > readinglady.com > > > > > ************************************** 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.
