I agree with Tim and Dave and Stahl! From the get go my issue has been inauthentic training and assessment with kids acting as parrots of nonsense-- so thank you On Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 04:48 AM, RASINSKI, TIMOTHY wrote:
> Hi Dave-- I agree completely with your sentence -- you're right on. > And, thanks for the invitation to expand on your definition -- > Fluency instruction is most effective when it involves authentic > reading for authentic purposes (overt and single-minded focus on > speed and accuracy are not what I would consider authentic). > Moreover, I would add that the methods suggested by the NRP and others > -- modeling fluent reading, repeated reading, assisted reading should > be included in the instruction in ways that are authentic (e.g. > repeated and assisted reading are most authentic when students engage > in repeated reading or rehearsal for eventual performance to an > audience). Texts most approrpiate for fluency instruction are texts > that are meant to be performed (e.g. poetry, scripts, song lyrics, > etc.) and have a strong sense of voice (voice in writing is the other > side of prosody in reading -- narrative, poetry, scripts, song lyrics, > etc fit well here too. Informational texts can be a bit more > challenging -- not always written with strong sense of voice). > Finally, I will make one more addendum to suggest that there is an > existing and growing body of research that indicates that when > students and teachers engage in this sort of fluency instruction > fluency, comprehension, and overall reading achievement improves. > > > > 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 Dave Middlebrook > Sent: Wed 7/11/2007 7:11 AM > To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group > Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Summary of Stahl's summary of the NRP on Fluency > > > > Hello Tim: > > It would be helpful to have your response to my one-sentence "summary" > of > the research on fluency. In case there could possibly be an argument > behind > my question, let me assure you that I am not looking for one. I just > want > to know your opinion. > > Here is the question: Elaine summarized Stahl's research, and I > summarized > her summary. Elaine thought my summary was "right on". The full text > of > the exchange is below. Now, I realize that even if you agree with > Elaine on > Stahl -- and perhaps you don't -- you still might not agree with Stahl > on > fluency. So my question to you is this: How accurate do you think my > one > sentence summary is, vis-a-vis where fluency research has taken us so > far? > Does my sentence say essentially what you would say about fluency at > this > time? Here is my sentence: "...fluency is important in the context of > authentic reading, but that the farther fluency work gets from > authentic > texts and the more targeted it gets on speed and accuracy without > comprehension, the less useful it is." > > I wouldn't be surprised if you had a more complex answer. Whatever > you have > to say would be welcomed. > > Thanks for the advice on googling "NAEP oral reading". I found the > study. > Interesting stuff. Very helpful with respect to prodosody (they call > it > fluency, but they defined their terms clearly, so I get it). > > Looking forward to your response. And thanks again for all of your > input > during this conversation. > > Dave Middlebrook > The Textmapping Project > A resource for teachers improving reading comprehension skills > instruction. > www.textmapping.org | Please share this site with your colleagues! > USA: (609) 771-1781 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "elaine garan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:45 PM > Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Summary of Stahl's summary of the NRP on Fluency > > >> On the nudge front, I didn't see much on prosody. > > I believe your summary is right on. Perhaps there's less on prosody > because while you can measure speed and accuracy, prosody is less easy > to quantify and so the focus is on what can be measured? Maybe Tim > knows. While you're reading my book, I think you'll see a lot in the > chapter on ELL's that converges with what Stahl has synthesized. > > On Monday, July 9, 2007, at 07:29 PM, Dave Middlebrook wrote: > >> Thanks Elaine! Lots to chew on. My quick take after reading your >> summary >> is that fluency is important in the context of authentic reading, but >> that >> the farther fluency work gets from authentic texts and the more >> targeted it >> gets on speed and accuracy without comprehension, the less useful it >> is. Is >> that an accurate way to put it? >> >> On the nudge front, I didn't see much on prosody. That is an area of >> current and significant interest for me. If you have any other >> sources on >> that, I'd be interested in looking into them. I'll be digging into >> your >> book before the summer ends. Thanks for your detailed replies. >> >> Dave Middlebrook >> The Textmapping Project >> A resource for teachers improving reading comprehension skills >> instruction. >> www.textmapping.org | Please share this site with your colleagues! >> USA: (609) 771-1781 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "elaine garan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:05 PM >> Subject: [MOSAIC] Summary of Stahl's summary of the NRP on Fluency >> >> >> Ta-Dah!! For Dave or anyone else-- here it is hot off the press: >> >> Ok-Here is the information from Stahl's chapter on Fluency in The >> Voice >> of Evidence in Reading Research. This was sanctioned by the National >> Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the various >> sections were written by members or contributors of the Report of the >> National Reading Panel. Its purpose is to put the panel's research >> into >> practice so this has the federal stamp of approval. >> >> Stahl was a contributor to the NRP report. What he's done is try to >> pull together the various studies and the findings of the NRP and >> discuss their implications for classroom teaching. I'm going to >> outline >> the chapter section by section since so that the big picture isn't >> lost. If I have a personal comment, I'll note it as such. Otherwise, >> this is the flow of undiluted, uncherrypicked federally- sanctioned >> Stahl. I think what he says is well-balanced, fair and makes a lot of >> sense. >> >> >> This is a draft-it is accurate in terms of content-- but no doubt >> has >> spelling or grammatical errors but I'm not cleaning it up now. 1. Ch >> starts with how fluency has been a neglected topic but is destined to >> move to the forefront because of NCLB. (p. 187) >> 2. Then Stahl discusses models of reading development that emphasize >> fluency-Chall, Ehri-and how the belief is that if kids can recognize >> words automatically, they can devote energy to comprehension. This is >> the same argument and the same researchers who support heavy phonics >> instruction for the same reason. Note: He describes this in terms of >> models and does not agree or disagree. He then moves on to the >> definition of fluency (p.187-188) >> 3. Stahl states that conventionally, fluency is defined as 1) a >> reasonable rate; 2) "accurate without too many miscues" NOTE: Stahl >> uses the term "miscues" instead of "errors" thus appearing to validate >> the concept-I would note that later he cites Marie Clay and others >> connected to Reading Recovery to promote the use of context, rather >> than decoding alone to help kids identify words. 3) prosodic-read with >> expression to sound like language. >> 4. THEN-and this is important-Stahl (p. 188) says that these >> definitions of reading (those 3 components) are over simplified and >> that "Reading, however, is more complex" >> 5. He then qualifies and expands on that oversimplified definition of >> fluency by saying, (p. 188) "Teachers assume that those who... are >> struggling with the text, making many miscues, hesitating and >> repeating >> words are struggling readers and that those who read the text >> comfortably are comprehending accurately. He says, for the most part >> this is true. But then he gets into the complexities and the >> qualifications: >> 7. "Reading however is more complex. Sometimes children can be reading >> accurately but do not understand what they read" He cites (Carpenter >> an >> Paris and also Pinnell et al (1995) >> 8. He then goes on for 2 pages saying how the 3 components of fluency >> (rate, accuracy and prosody) are not enough. He cites Pinnell's study >> for NAEP-who found that 4th graders tested in this special study >> "showed that overall, oral reading accuracy was not significantly >> related to comprehension "(p. 188) >> 9. Pinnell et all DID find however that "significant miscues were >> strongly related to comprehension. ([pp.188) >> 10. Stahl then further supports the Pinnell findings that "oral >> reading accuracy was only related to comprehension In first and second >> grades with correlations in third grade and beyond dropping to near >> zero." This quote is from studies by Carpenter and Paris-also a study >> by Schwnaenflugel, Kuhn , Meidnhrt, Bradley and Stahl. >> 11. Stahl then concludes. "Thus, oral reading accuracy may be >> important only in early grades, with other factors such as vocabulary >> and comprhension strategy use becoming important later." NOTE: This >> does not mean that training kids to read faster influences >> comprehension since the results are correlational and correlation is >> not causation. In fact, Stahl says this later on in the chapter. >> 11. He then distinguishes rate from accuracy and says that oral >> reading rate remains important through elementary years (p.189). So >> this answers Dave's question. Rate then was associated with >> comprehension. He then gets into the implications for reading/fluency >> instruction: >> 12. His thesis is that fluency should be taught through contectual >> reading, not through isolated word practice or isolated passage >> practice: "Teaching children to say isolated words faster does not >> seem >> to improve comprhension. A number of studies have examined teaching >> children to say words that they know faster"-Then he lists a series of >> studies. "Although all of these studies found that children's passage >> reading fluency improved, none found differences between the study >> group and the control group. >> 13. Studies of repeated and assisted reading of connected text, not >> isolated words do show strong effects of measures of comprehension as >> well as on meas;ures of fluency. "Competent reading requires skills >> that extend beyond the single word level to contextual reading and >> that >> this skill can best be acquired by practicing reading in which the >> words are in a meaningful context" (p. 189) >> >> NOTE: What does this say about DIBELS practice in which some of the >> practice/assessment isn't even at the word level but has young >> children >> call out nonsense words? This also has implications for ssr and wide >> reading since the correlation can mean that reading/comprehension can >> influence rate even as rate can influence comprehension. >> >> 14. He then cites criticisms of round robin reading and appropriate >> reading feedback. He here cites Clay and suggests cueing children to >> use their knowledge of words and meaning to decode unknown words in >> context and says that these methods are more effective than round >> robin >> reading. >> 15. Then he gets into "repeated readings, neurological impress and >> similar techniques" as ways of promoting fluency (p.191). He says >> that >> the problem was that most of these studies measured these techniques >> on >> fluency of particular PASSAGES-in other words, the kids read passages >> repeatedly and then their improvement or change was measured on a >> posttest of the same passages. This is important-Stahl states that >> these studies did not measure whether the improvement translated to >> general reading. >> NOTE: These are almost the exact words used by Michael Pressley in his >> independent research on DIBELS-He states, DIBELS training makes kids >> better in DIBELS and that's it. >> 16. In other words, as with isolated word training, kids got better >> and faster on calling out isolated words - but they did not improve in >> general reading and comprehension. So the fact that the studies showed >> improvement in passage fluency does not mean that the training results >> in transfer to general reading achievement. However, when repeated >> readings are combined with other measures, such as previewing a text >> or >> listening, seems to be effective for first graders and struggling >> fifth >> graders (NOTE: That is a really narrow population of effectiveness!) >> 17. Stahl then cites the NRP on repeated readings as a means of >> training fluency as connected to achievement: " But the panel reported >> [as a qualification to the positive results of expanded repeated >> readings on first graders and fifth graders]- >> >> "It certainly cannot be inferred that repeated reading or other guided >> repeated oral reading procedures would be effective in raising reading >> achievement on the basis of these studies alone. (in Stahl, pl 191 >> citing NRP, p. 3-16) >> >> NOTE: Melanie Kuhn's study (that I cited and offered to send to you >> all) was done after this chapter by Stahl was written and her >> conclusions support those of Stahl's here. Her repeated >> reading/fluency >> trained group improved in fluency but not comprehension. On the other >> hand the group that did lots of reading improved in BOTH fluency and >> comprehension. >> >> 18. Stahl states that fluency training, including repeated readings, >> has more of an influence on fluency than it does on comprehension: >> "That the effects on measures of reading comprehension are lower than >> those for fluency measures are not surprising.. Reading comprehension >> is less directly related to fluency training than are more direct >> measures of fluency. Transfer is always more difficult to find. >> However >> the findings seem encouraging." (p.192). >> >> 19. Stahl then gets into a huge section on how important authentic >> practice is in reading. He discusses why the NRP did not find enough >> experimental studies to support SSR-they left out the Elley Book Flood >> studies and they used fluency rather than comprehension and vocabulary >> for the outcomes of SSR. He then recommends SSR as part of every >> school >> day where kids read books of their choice. I posted a lot on SSR and >> it's in my book so I'm not reposting all of that. >> >> I20. n summary in "putting this all together" Stahl states, "Although >> many successful approaches used repeated readings of a single text, >> repetition does not seem to be necessary. Instead, it seems to be >> necessary to increase the amount of reading that children do at an >> appropriate level" (p.207)-THAT is a vital quote that somehow I left >> out of my book, darn it. >> >> "Although fuency-accuracy, rate, and prosody-is an important component >> of effective reading, it is not sufficient to make a child a reader. >> .. >> Our studies show that fluency is most important in first and second >> grades, with other aspects of reading gaining importance in third >> grade >> and higher." (p. 208). "Disfluent reading can limit a child's >> comprehension but more than fluency is needed to make a child a good >> reader" (p. 208) >> >> You can agree or disagree with any of this, but this is an accurate >> summary of what Stahl says the NRP says about fluency. So other than >> the capitalized NOTES-where I expand or comment on some aspect of the >> research (I think I've earned the right)-this is not me saying >> this-this is the NRP >> >> I would note that the National Literacy Panel on Minority Children and >> Youth reports many of the same findings as the NRP-too much training >> and focus on surface skills so kids read accurately and with >> intonation-but do not comprehend. SAME with the phonics section of the >> NRP_- training in phonics improves phonics skills on isolated word >> lists, but does NOT transfer to comprehension. >> >> Thanks . Elaine >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
