Just one more thought and then I'm off of here. Tim-- your work is amazing. I love it and use it as a source for a great deal of masters work here at Fresno state. I had a student who actually did a masters project with your work at the center.
And I would add that one of the best ways to improve fluency without separating it from comprehension is Readers Theater. It gives kids an opportunity for repeated readings, lots of expression for an authentic purpose. Furthermore, rather than addressing surface structure as with echo reading, it draws kids into the text. Now I am off of here! so your mailboxes are safe from Elaine for today. On Saturday, May 26, 2007, at 08:17 AM, Tim Rasinski wrote: > Elaine: Thanks for the great response; and I am similarly honored to > read your comments (and our other colleagues as well). You have taken > such > a courageous and principled stance on behalf of teachers and our > wonderful > profession. > > I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment -- fluency is important, > but > DIBELS is not fluency (at best it is only a tiny sliver and too often a > misleading one at that). And so, teaching to DIBELS is not the same > as > teaching fluency. > > tim > > > At 08:35 AM 5/26/2007 -0700, you wrote: >> It seems to me we are talking about two related but separate issues >> here: 1)DIBELS and 2) fluency, it's definition, its role in >> comprehension and how it is acquired (does training in fluency result >> in stronger comprehension, or does lots of reading and comprehension >> result in fluency? >> >> I want to reply to Lori and Tim's comments on fluency. Tim, thank you >> for chiming in here. It's an honor to have your input. First to Lori's >> comments on Ken Goodman's DIBELS book. Yes, he makes many excellent >> points in the book including the confusion with Spanish speaking >> children and children and teachers who have accents. I think perhaps >> when his book was being written, Michael Pressley may not have >> completed his research on DIBELS. >> >> What Pressley and his team of independent researchers found is that 1) >> The research on the DIBELS' website was done by people associated >> with >> DIBELS and who therefore had a vested interest in the outcomes. 2) >> That >> DIBELS mispredicts children's reading ability as measured by other, >> broader assessments. Here are some quotes from Michael Pressley who >> was >> a contributor to the National Reading Panel, a Reading Hall of fame >> member and much of his work was directed at comprehension. I don't >> want >> this to seem as if my issue is DIBELS per se. It's about what DIBELS >> does in the long run and the way it confuses the fluency issue, >> because >> it's been mandated in so many schools as a result of Reading First. >> Most of our reading is not oral. I am often not fluent when I read to >> myself (which is most of the time) because I often slow down and savor >> the text or think about what I'm reading. Anyway, here is part of what >> Pressley and his team found that I cite in my book. I'll respond to >> Tim's observation about older readers and fluency in another email >> because this is so long. Here are the quotes from the late Michael >> Pressley resulting from his independent research on DIBELS: >> >> DIBELS is often used as a predictor of reading success or failure. >> However, even the DIBELS website shows that DIBELS only predicts 50% >> of >> the variance in more comprehensive measures. Independent research is >> even more dismal and shows that DIBELS only predicts 20% of the >> variance. >> >> What this means is that if you want to train kids to read fast with >> low >> comprehension, then DIBELS is a great measure… it also means that >> DIBELS often flags children as having problems when they are actually >> good comprehenders. It also means that it neglects to identify >> children >> who do have problems. >> >> Michael Pressley: Contributor to the Report of the National Reading >> Panel. >> >> “Based on available data, the fairest conclusion is that DIBELS >> mis-predicts reading performance on other assessments much of the >> time, >> and at best is a measure of who reads quickly without regard to >> whether >> the reader comprehends what is read” Consequently, they strongly >> suggest that the whole issue of validating DIBELS should be reopened >> before districts spend time and money on an assessment that is not a >> valid predictor of reading proficiency (p. 2. National Reading Panel >> contributor Michael Pressley, M. Hilden, K., and Shankland). >> >> “We cannot reconcile the difference in outcome reported here and in >> the >> previous work [the research of the DIBELS associates]…. We think the >> slippage between our results and those available on the DIBELS site, >> all of which were produced by individuals either associated with >> DIBELS >> or Reading First, makes clear that there needs to be additional study >> of the DIBELS oral fluency measure by individuals not closely >> associated with the measure” (p. 23. National Reading Panel >> contributor >> Michael Pressley, Katherine Hilden, and Rebecca Shankland). >> >> “Correlations between the Oral Reading Fluency scores and Oral >> Retelling scores [the DIBELS measure for comprehension] were very low” >> (p. 17. National Reading Panel contributor Michael Pressley, M. >> Hilden, K., and Shankland, R.). >> >> You’ll find these quotes in: >> Pressley ,M., Hilden ,K., & Shankland, R., (2005). An evaluation of >> end-of-grade 3 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills ( >> DIBELS): Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little . East >> Lansing: Michigan State University Literacy Achievement Research >> Center. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday, May 26, 2007, at 08:03 AM, ljackson wrote: >> >>> This is such a stimulating conversation and it does really align with >>> my own >>> thoughts about fluency. I think we have to get beyond numbers and >>> look at >>> the problems readers have as specifically as possible. Automaticity? >>> Prosody? I recently worked with a reader (doing a pilot with the new >>> DRA) >>> who read at 99% accuracy and his comprehension was amazing. However, >>> he was >>> not considered to be fluent. I listened to this child read, and I >>> can >>> tell >>> you, I saw no issues with oral fluency that were not related to his >>> own >>> efforts to make meaning. He did pause often over challenging words, >>> reread >>> and sometimes even comment aloud on his perceived meaning of the >>> word, >>> the >>> phrase. Guess what? He was on the money, as his comprehension >>> scores >>> clearly showed, and the strategies he was employing in order to >>> understand >>> were the very strategies that slowed him down. Other than this sort >>> of >>> reflective reading, he was phrased, responsive to all punctuation and >>> reasonably expressive. To further the discussion, he tested at a >>> level 70. >>> He was eight years old and I would not personally have pushed him to >>> this >>> level, but his parents and teacher both wanted to know how he would >>> perform >>> at this level. So is he an at-risk reader? Hardly. Funny thing, he >>> identifies oral reading as one of his personal goals for improvement >>> as a >>> reader (without being prompted), along with a need to get more >>> comfortable >>> with different fiction genres. When I asked him what fluency meant, >>> his >>> answer was that it sounds like a good story telling voice. I connect >>> that >>> to Tim's assessment of King. Story tellers use their voice for >>> effect >>> and >>> sometimes that means slowing down to emphasize the message, to create >>> dramatic effect, to persuade or to impact the listener or the reader. >>> That >>> knowledge is far more important that WPM, in my opinion. >>> >>> Lori >>> >>> >>> On 5/26/07 7:44 AM, "Tim Rasinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Everyone. This is my first posting, so I hope you will all >>>> be >>>> gentle with me. I was asked to join the conversation inasmuch as I >>>> have >>>> been studying reading fluency for the past 27 years and have written >>>> widely >>>> about it over much the same period. My interested started >>>> when I >>>> tried to understand the struggling readers I worked with who seemed >>>> to be >>>> highly intelligent, yet had difficulty with reading and >>>> understanding >>>> what >>>> they read. When I first read about fluency it was an epiphany. >>>> >>>> Let me begin by saying that I don't agree with all that has been >>>> done >>>> with >>>> fluency, particularly over the past ten years or so, in fact I >>>> strongly >>>> disagree with the direction it has generally been going. Your >>>> comments >>>> largely reflect my own thoughts on the issue. I do operate under >>>> the >>>> assumption, however naive it may be, that we are all trying to do >>>> what's >>>> right for kids. Even those folks who are doing odd things to >>>> reading >>>> fluency honestly believe they are helping children become good >>>> readers. >>>> >>>> Let me outline specifically my concerns and ideas related to >>>> fluency. >>>> >>>> Fluency is related to comprehension, quite strongly in fact. My >>>> own >>>> research has in fact found strong correlations between fluency and >>>> comprehension all the way through senior high school. We found we >>>> could >>>> predict high school students' performance on Ohio's High School >>>> Graduation >>>> Test (a silent reading comprehension test) with a measure of reading >>>> fluency (see Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 2005). We >>>> have >>>> found similar results in working with older kids in Chicago and >>>> Omaha. Interestingly, however, policy makers are not terribly >>>> interested >>>> in fluency with older students. It's just not issue they say. >>>> I'd >>>> like >>>> for them to see that 9th grader who is reading without any >>>> expression >>>> or >>>> enthusiasm, or who reads at 25 words per minute. Think about it - >>>> if >>>> an >>>> average 9th grader reads at 150 words per minute, what would >>>> normally >>>> be an >>>> hour reading assignment for an average reading 9th grader now >>>> becomes >>>> a 6 >>>> hour marathon for the student reading at such a slow rate. And, I >>>> can >>>> tell you that we have a lot of kids in middle and high school who >>>> like this. >>>> >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating teaching kids to read fast >>>> for the >>>> sake of reading fast' but we have to at least consider it. >>>> >>>> My interest is in struggling readers. I run our reading clinic at >>>> Kent >>>> State and I believe it is a huge concern for students experiencing >>>> severe >>>> difficulty in reading. Mike Pressley and Nell Duke and another >>>> colleague >>>> wrote that among students experiencing severe difficulty in reading, >>>> between 75-90% of them have difficulties in reading fluency that >>>> are a >>>> significant source of their comprehension problems. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think that fluency is important for comprehension -- it is not >>>> necessarily comprehension, but it sets the stage for comprehension. >>>> >>>> Fluency has at least two components -- >>>> >>>> 1) automaticity -- recognizing the words so effortlessly (in the >>>> way >>>> that >>>> all of us are doing right now) that we can use our limited cognitive >>>> resources to make sense of the text, not just decode the words. >>>> >>>> Reading rate is a pretty good measure of automaticity, very strongly >>>> correlated with overall reading proficiency. And so measures such >>>> as >>>> DIBELS, AIMSWEB and others have been developed. To be honest, I use >>>> reading rate as a measure of automaticity in my own work. >>>> >>>> The problem has come when this MEASURE of automaticity has become >>>> SYNONYMOUS with automaticity - that is, as many of you have so >>>> clearly >>>> indicated, reading speed, not automaticity, has become the goal of >>>> reading >>>> fluency instruction. Now I see kids charting their reading rates, >>>> well >>>> meaning teachers invoking kids to read faster and faster,etc. I >>>> don't >>>> blame teachers -- they are hearing this from policy makers and >>>> others. Last year I did a little survey of kids in my region. I >>>> would >>>> ask them to name the best reader in their class. Once done, I would >>>> then >>>> ask them to tell me why that person is such a good reader. The >>>> number one >>>> answer was "He or she reads fast" Kids get what we teach them, >>>> and >>>> I >>>> think, they are all getting the wrong message here. Reading speed >>>> is >>>> a >>>> measure of automaticity in the same way the my dog's tail is an >>>> indicator >>>> of her happiness. But I don't make my dog happy by wagging her tail >>>> for >>>> her and I don't make a reader fluent by tell them to read fast. >>>> >>>> 2) There is a second component to fluency that gets acknowledged, >>>> but not >>>> much else -- prosody, or reading with expression. I think this is >>>> where >>>> we really connect fluency to comprehension. In reading, meaning >>>> is >>>> carried with the voice as well as with the words -- through our >>>> pausing, >>>> our tone, our emphasis, our phrasing etc. Even when we read >>>> silently I >>>> think we are still listening to voice in our heads. >>>> >>>> The US Dept of Ed has done two large scale studies which found a >>>> strong >>>> relationship between oral reading expression and silent reading >>>> comprehension. Kids who when reading orally read with expression >>>> tended >>>> to be the best comprehenders when reading silently. Kids who read >>>> like >>>> robots when reading orally (without regard for reading speed) tended >>>> to be >>>> the same kids who had difficulty with comprehension when reading >>>> silently. >>>> >>>> I think teaching kids to read with good expression needs to be as >>>> important >>>> a goal for reading instruction as automaticity. And yet, I think >>>> that is >>>> given very little attention. In fact, oral reading is given very >>>> little >>>> attention in schools.; and yet the research shows that the more oral >>>> reading done in classrooms is associated with higher reading >>>> achievement >>>> (see Rasinski & Hoffman, Reading Research Quarterly, 2003). I am >>>> not >>>> advocating round robin oral reading, but authentic oral reading. >>>> >>>> Automaticty and prosody in reading are, I believe, well established. >>>> The >>>> question becomes, how to teach both in ways that are authentic, >>>> engaging, >>>> and not overly time consuming. However I think I have written >>>> enough. I >>>> would love to read your responses. >>>> >>>> But let me close with a brief case study I did back in January. I >>>> love the >>>> work of Dr. Martin Luther King, admire his principals, but also his >>>> ability >>>> to communicate. I think most people would agree that he is one of >>>> the most >>>> fluent speakers/readers of all time. Yet, in January I printed out >>>> his I >>>> Have a Dream Speech and listened to his delivery of the speech from >>>> 1963. On impulse, I decided to subject his reading of the speech >>>> to the >>>> DIBELS oral reading fluency test. As you might expect he did not >>>> do >>>> well. I calculated his reading rate at 102 words correct per >>>> minute, >>>> the >>>> level of a primary grade student. It's hard to believe that if his >>>> speech >>>> was a test, it might have landed him in a remedial reading setting. >>>> Of >>>> course, no one in their right mind would claim that his speech, or >>>> any >>>> other great orator for that matter, was disfluent. We have to ask >>>> ourselves, what made that a fluent reading? The answer of course >>>> is not >>>> reading speed, but his use of prosody -- his pausing, his volume, >>>> his >>>> voicing, his phrasing, -- that is what gave the speech a deeper >>>> meaning >>>> than the words alone could do. >>>> >>>> Well guess that is enough for me. I hope that gives you a sense of >>>> where I >>>> am coming from when I talk about reading fluency. Thank you for >>>> reading this. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> tim rasinski >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At 06:39 PM 5/25/2007 -0700, you wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D. >>>> Reading and Writing Center >>>> 404 White Hall >>>> Kent State University >>>> Kent, OH 44242 >>>> >>>> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Phone: 330-672-0649 >>>> Cell: 330-962-6251 >>>> Fax: 330-672-2025 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Lori Jackson >>> District Literacy Coach & Mentor >>> Todd County School District >>> Box 87 >>> Mission SD 57555 >>> >>> http:www.tcsdk12.org >>> ph. 605.856.2211 >>> >>> >>> Literacies for All Summer Institute >>> "Literate Lives: A Human Right" >>> July 12-15, 2007 >>> Louisville, Kentucky >>> >>> http://www.ncte.org/profdev/conv/wlu >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. > > Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D. > Reading and Writing Center > 404 White Hall > Kent State University > Kent, OH 44242 > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 330-672-0649 > Cell: 330-962-6251 > Fax: 330-672-2025 > Informational website: www.timrasinski.com > Professional Development DVD: http://www.roadtocomprehension.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.
