What I think honestly, is that DIBELS doesn't assess students as much as it trains them in an approach to text. I have all the independent research including Michael Pressley's study of DIBELS. I hate to even get into that because it's really controversial and controversy can be divisive. On the other hand, it can also push our thinking. I know I need to constantly rethink my positions. So as far as DIBELS goes, I can always refer to the research.
And yes-- the comprehension section on it does indeed have the assessor count the number of words in the story that the kids recite whether or not they are even in sequence. That is efficient training of an approach-- look at the words, look at the details, don't put together the big picture or it literally works against you if you paraphrase, or expand on the text or personally relate to it using your own words. I found the research on DIBELS in particular and on fluency in general to be just fascinating. It is in such opposition to what schools are told and sold. On Friday, May 25, 2007, at 05:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 5/25/2007 10:42:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > 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 > You are right about the DIBELS. I was very disturbed when we looked > at it > that the way they measured comprehension of the passage was by > counting the > number of words the child used in their retell. This is one of the > major > reasons we never purchased it. > > I am not advocating fluency programs at all. I really don't think you > need > one. I think the reason we see so many now is because it is easy to > package > and sell. I teach my fluency lessons with text the children are > reading and > short passages that are on an appropriate level for the child. I > also vary > the genre to be sure they understand how to read these as well. > > > 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. > Yes that is exactly what I was saying. > > 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. > > That is absolutely right. That is why we have to understand that when > someone says they teach fluency it does not merely mean we time the > children and > get a score. It is so much more than that and should be included in > the > reading instruction we do. I really teach it in reading as well as > writing. > > I also agree with what you said about the data regarding ELLs and > decoding > instruction. Many ELLs that I have worked with are good word > callers. They > can call the words but do not have great comprehension. > > 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.
