Renee and Beverlee: Thanks for your elaborate and eloquent responses. I certainly agree with the frustration that you and other teachers face daily and must deal with. I am frustrated myself by the same concerns you raise.
As you indicated, I did make the statement that oral reading is an indicator of silent reading. You ask how do we know that? I think there is abundance of research that has shown this to be the case - a correlation between the two -- not a perfect correlation, but a significant and one substantial enough that we continue to use oral reading to assess and make inferences about silent reading. Indeed, Ken and Yetta's miscue analysis has taken analysis of oral reading to a very sophisticated and informed level. My point in all this was just to make the case that I believe oral reading does have a place in the curriculum. Not the old fashion round robin oral reading, but authentic, engaging uses of oral reading. And, in my opinion, because of the relationship between oral and silent reading, authentic and engaging use of and instruction in oral reading will have a positive impact on students' silent reading. I have written too much about this already and readers are probably sick of hearing from me. So I will try to keep quiet for now. If I have offended anyone with any of my comments, I do apologize and ask your forgiveness. It was not my intent. 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/ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Beverlee Paul Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 6:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Repeated Readings for Fluency - Question for Tim Tim, If you remember back to how this started, you made this statement: >> ... It very likely is slow and halting during silent reading -- >> readers who read in a slow an labored way orally, tend to read in a >> very similar way when reading silently. I took exception to this statement with my question, "How can we possibly know this?" Renee - I thought your explanation (which I deleted) clarified and elaborated on your thinking, which I obviously strongly agreed with. But I think your original cryptic question really best said it all. I can readily INFER that you thought the logic of the original remark was a bit stretched. So, from my perspective, "How can we possibly know this?" best expressed the entire argument in a nutshell. Here is the true point of departure, from my viewpoint. One professional makes a single assumption (that "readers who read in a slow and labored way orally, tend to read in a very similar way silently") and, from that assumption (which he believes to be true, but which others may or may not) generates an enormous set of "if....so" beliefs. Now I think many of us could buy his argument if he stated it as "possibly" and go ahead and do authentic readings and rereadings and the other wonderful techniques that Dr. Rasinski recommends. But, as a profession, it seems to me that this is yet another example of where we are with Reading First and other issues in our nation at this time. Renee's question is a seemingly simple and straightforward question. But, underneath that question, is an enormous statement. I'm trying not to make "much ado about nothing," but I think this exchange between Renee and Tim is sympomatic of a much, much larger issue. The following isn't the best example; the original question is. But. . . I would liken Dr. Rasinski's argument to the same problematic argument made by basal reader enthusiasts in the 50s and programmed reader enthusiastics in the late 60s, early 70s and the Reading First/Engelman enthusiasts of the early 21st Century folk-- that was questioned by Kenneth Goodman until he put a book into real children's hands and really looked and listened to what he saw and heard. And then Holdaway and Clay and Sulzby and Teale and Taylor...well, you get the point. Not to lose track of my thinking, however, is that what all these folk saw was that "answers will vary" is the only true, inescapable answer to how children become literate. The basal reader folk believed they knew precisely how children learned to read; they learned more and more words which the basal taught them. Further, they learned ALL the words that the basal taught them (oops!) and that they learned NO OTHER WORDS (really big oops!) than what the basal taught them. The programmed reader folk believed the same thing to be true, just with what they called word families and phonics generalizations and phonics. (By the way, thattime period is when most of Engleman's work was written.) Now, with the Reading First movement, we have a new Pony in the Show. Because these folk say that not only do children learn what is taught, and nothing more, but they say that if a child doesn't "get it" that way, that the key is to do the same thing more and more and more and more. Why do I have such a strong opinion? Because for the last 36 years, I've put real books in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade kids' hands and saw what they actually did and didn't do. I'm trying not to overgeneralize from my experience, but I do have a firm belief about what I saw and heard. That's probably best stated as "answers will vary" just as the teachers' guides say. (Well, not the Reading First teachers' guides, I guess.) And that's why I think Renee's question was right on, and should not be made light of. It was brilliant. When she elaborated for Tim, she spelled out her thinking, but that may have helped Tim to understand what she was saying. BUT - her question should be the question we're all shouting from the tops of our schoolhouses: HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT? The most we can do is ESTIMATE from the evidence!! (which I think Tim might agree with.) We have a multi-billion dollar industry providing us educators with materials, "training," more materials, testing, retesting, more materials, tutoring, monitoring, graphing, more materials, punishing, rewarding, more materials etcetera which is based on an assumption which fails to take into account the simple question Renee asked: HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT? I would say it's arrogance, but I think in this case arrogance is trumped by corporate greed and total lack of respect for an entire profession. Oh, my. Not to make a mountain out of a molehill (we've seen enough of that lately), but to say, "You go, girl!! Renee, you asked what many, many of us would like to ask." Bev _________________________________________________________________ http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr ation_HM_mini_2G_0507 _______________________________________________ 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.
