Okay, I had this little guy who could pronounce every word, attended to punctuation in a nominal sense and according to DIBELS, he was a top-notch little reader. Think again. He read like Howard Coselle (sp??), very monotone, and nothing his voice ever gave way to any humor or excitement or tension in the text. He could not remember a thing about his reading. I realize fully that he was NOT fluent--he did not phrase well, had no prosody, no inflection and regardless of his rate (which was exceptionally high, yet he did not sound like he was racing...), he was misidentifying reading as a process of pronunciation. I sure made sure that that changed and after two years concentrating on understanding, he is doing better. I agree with Elaine that DIBELS can message readers that WPM is what reading is all about.
Lori On 7/8/07 6:54 PM, "elaine garan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have one more thought that's been bubbling around in my head. It goes > along with what you say here, Beverlee and maybe expands on it a > little. In addition to the messages we send kids by timing them, > regardless of what WE are thinking, I'm wondering about the whole idea > of words per minute. > > Words per minute is treated by some assessments as if it's some sort of > an absolute. In other words that there is some north star of wpm-- and > if a kid hits that mark, then she is fluent and can read with > intonation then she comprehends or is adequately or inadequately > fluent, right? If as so many of us have concluded, reading rate must > vary with the text -- then how do we reconcile testing by wpm? How do > measurements of wpm take into account individual differences any more > than any standardization does? > > Furthermore, if a child has the background for the passage, then she > might read it more fluently and with more comprehension than a child > who is puzzling through because of lack of background knowledge. A good > reader would do that. Slow down and think. Or slow down and savor a > high interest text. On the other hand, a kid who doesn't read for > meaning might race through without a thought to whether or not the > passage makes sense or not. This is what the federal research says > ELL's tend to do -- read beautifully and with intonation and sound > wonderful without a clue as to what they read. > > Doesn't this render the idea of wpm even more arbitrary than the fact > that it is set out there like it is some inviable truth. Isn't that > what standardized tests of all sorts generally do? Take arbitrary > facts, determine they are necessary knowledge and treat them as such > even though they are decided by fallible humans with their own biases?. > And who is to set the rate of how many wpm is acceptable for all kids > (or the range of those wpm)--? See what I mean? > > And we can say we don't want to separate fluency (speed, accuracy and > prosody) from comprehension but don't passages that exact an arbitrary > measure such as wpm and treat that measure as if it were an absolute > rather than as an arbitrary mark determined by someone somewhere-- do > exactly that? An how authentic an assessment measure is a hothouse > passage designed to measure wpm? Doesn't it also exclude the whole idea > of interest as well as background knowledge? > > And doesn't training especially middle and high school kids to read > aloud (even with intonation) detract from the ultimate goal of > reading-- reading silently for meaning. I think the reading aloud > aspect while convenient for measuring fluency and wpm detracts from the > ultimate purpose of reading. > > Again, I'm going to repeat what I said some time back. Why do we > measure for fluency at all? Why not measure for comprehension and then > if that is low, then take measure to increase it including more reading > and all the ideas for comprehension. And again, what we see with our > problem readers here is not lack of fluency. We see kids who read not > just quickly, but very well-- in terms of how they sound-- but are > clueless when it comes to the big picture-- the macro meaning of the > text rather than as someone pointed out-- the sentence and paragraph > level comprehension. this is long and not real articulate but I'm still > working it through in my mind. Thanks. Elaine > On Sunday, July 8, 2007, at 04:11 PM, Beverlee Paul wrote: > >> I am not saying that kids who read laboriously are not >> hindered by the slow, word by word reading. I think where we would >> diverge in our approaches is I would say, model, allow the kid to do >> lots of reading but do NOT let the child for one second think it is >> about speed and even speed and intonation. I think the end result is >> the same-- in terms of how kids sound. The difference is in the way to >> get there and how they come to view reading. I don't think we totally >> disagree. >> >> One thing I think we tend to forget that is SO important, is that we >> are >> always teaching kids--even when we forget or deny it. Every >> instructional >> decision we make teaches kids. Every ASSESSMENT decision we make >> teaches >> kids. It's pretty irrelevant what our sophisticated, educated minds >> tell us >> internally when we time kids. No matter our thoughts about >> comprehension/fluency. No matter our goals of prosody. No matter our >> lofty >> intents. It is ABSOLUTELY INESCAPABLE when a teacher/adult gets out a >> stopwatch that a child learns SPEED. Good grief! It really sends me >> to the >> boiling point of disbelief that anyone could possibly think that any >> normal >> child doesn't learn we want him to read FAST! If we brought out a >> mic, he'd >> read LOUD! If we brought out a metronome, he'd read rhythmically. >> >> In the post-NRP/NCLB era, our entire profession has become so >> disjointed and >> "trivialized" as we have attempted to reduce every >> skill/strategy/strand to >> smaller and smaller pieces so they can be measured and tracked so we >> are >> "accountable." One of the reasons fluency became one of the NRP >> thrusts was >> because "reading" could be reduced to brief timed outbursts which >> could be >> "measured." Measuring comprehension is a far broader skill to measure >> and >> the assessment couldn't be done by retired teachers and >> paras-of-the-day >> (read: DIBELS) quickly, down, and dirty. Anyone, however, can run a >> stopwatch and all those numbers can be recorded, graphed, charted, >> compared, >> and made into PowerPoints! >> >> When will we ever learn that the whole is so much, much greater than >> the sum >> of stripped, devoid of meaning, parts??? Parts will always be >> just....parts. >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> http://newlivehotmail.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. > -- 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.
