I would have thought that the reason that fluency was cited by the NRP was because of an existing and growing body of evidence that suggests that fluency is an important component in learning to read, that a significant number of students in the primary grades and beyond are not sufficiently fluent, and that teaching children to become more fluent results in overall higher levels of achievement and comprehension. Steve Stahl has been cited a number of times in this discussion. In one of his last published studies -- actually published after his death -- (Stahl & Heubach, Journal of Literacy Research, 2005) he reported on an implementation of his model of fluency oriented reading instruction. He found that students made gains in reading achievement and comprehension well above what they may have been expected to achieve. The study was particularly noteworthy in that a significant number of students were struggling readers. Timothy Rasinski 404 White Hall Kent State University Kent, OH 44242 330-672-0649 Cell -- 330-962-6251 FAX 330-672-2025 [EMAIL PROTECTED] informational website: www.timrasinski.com professional development DVD: http://www.roadtocomprehension.com/ <https://exchange.kent.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.roadtocomprehension.com/>
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Waingort Jimenez, Elisa Sent: Tue 7/10/2007 4:54 AM To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Repeated Readings for Fluency - Question for Tim And because it was a pet peeve of some on the panel. Elisa Waingort Calgary, Canada 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."
_______________________________________________ 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.
