why be embarrassed? i thought your words were impressive and believing in your book and what you think and write is awesome and inspiring. margy
elaine garan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am so so sorry that I inadverently sent this to the whole listserve. I meant to send it to my editor. I'd been forwarding the posts about Nancie's book (she's Nancie's editor too) and she and I had gotten into a discussion about whether or not I should talk about my own book. I feel uncomfortable doing that-- she feels that I should and that I should also stop giving away entire sections of it. I had sent probably 25 people (not counting my classes) the section on fluency and DIBELS before the book was even finished. From an editor's perspective that is not such a good thing to do. Anyway, how embarrassing! I am staying off MOT from now until the end of time On Saturday, June 2, 2007, at 01:33 PM, elaine garan wrote: >> Lois-- Here is what I posted, followed by Bill's question about the >> research on SSR. I don't know if I sounded too much like I was >> promoting my own book here. That can be so off putting > > >> Bill- the research overwhelming supports what Nancie advocates. I have >> an entire section of my book devoted to the research supporting SSR -- >> from federal studies-- as well as the research supporting reading >> aloud >> to students. Elaine >> > > Elaine, > Any chance you could offer some of the research on SSR? > > According to the NRP: > > "The Panel determined that guided repeated oral reading has a > significant > and positive impact on word recognition, reading fluency, and > comprehension > for students of all ages. However, the Panel was unable to conclude > that > independent silent reading, as the only type of reading instruction, > improves reading fluency." > > Silent reading can't be measured. Oral can (let's not get started on > fluency again!). I have a principal who likes hard numbers to back up > my > strategies, and I can't find any hard numbers on SSR. That's was one > of my > issues with READING ZONE...no actual numbers backing up her claims. > She had > a couple of pages on how the research used for the NRP was incomplete, > but > saying something isn't working ain't the same as saying something else > works. > > Bill > > On Saturday, June 2, 2007, at 12:46 PM, elaine garan wrote: > >> I'll send it to you off list. It's all in my book but I get that you >> need it now. As a matter a fact, the NRP came up with a book called >> The >> Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. In it, members of the NRP wrote >> chapters translating the findings of the NRP. the book was published >> by >> the NICHD-- It was dedicated to Reid Lyon. In it, NRP contributor >> Steven Stahl. has a chapter translating the work on fluency. The >> research for SSR came in the fluency section of the NRP. Stahl >> actually >> recommends 30 minutes of sSR with books of the kids' own choice each >> day-- THAT is the federal research/ >> >> What's more, Stahl discusses the experimental research of Elley who >> did >> what are called the "book flood studies" a large longitudinal series >> of >> studies with English Language Learners. The results were that >> classrooms that were "flooded" with high interest books, and in which >> teachers received some training in shared reading (this involved >> having >> kids discuss stories aka literature groups) the kids improved in >> reading and vocabuluary. What's more, an unexpected result was that >> they improved in writing too. Much of his work focused on reading >> aloud, shared reading with kids but it included SSR too. In other >> words, a balance of approaches using real literature. >> >> I can tell you what happened with the NRP and that section on Fluency >> and how that quote got pulled out and distributed to discourage SSR >> but >> that is a long story. I will find the hard numbers and the quotes and >> send them to you. >> >> I hate to sound like I'm always just promoting my book-- but it has >> all >> of this in it. It has quotes, numbers etc in plain English that you >> can >> actually download, but it also has that research translated into plain >> English-- with how to teach those methods. Let me get my file. I will >> cut and paste and send you quotes off list. You will be amazed at what >> the federal studies actually show, >> >> I was just stunned when I finished that book. I had a really strong >> sense of parts of the federal research that had been misrepresented-- >> but when I put it all together including the big federal study on >> minority children and youth-- it was incredible how much their own >> evidence converged from so many areas to support reading as a complex >> act that kids should actually engage in-- IN school, as part of a >> reading program. >> >> Sometimes I feel like just screaming-- we have been so blindsided and >> bamboozled by this research. All any publisher or any one anywhere has >> to say is, "The research says... This is research based.." and most >> teachers and administrators do not have the time or in some cases the >> expertise to sift through and crosscheck and see what the heck is true >> and what we are being lied to about. That's what I did. I went through >> it all. Sometimes I feel as if I'm the only person who really knows >> what's in those studies. >> On Saturday, June 2, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Bill Roberts wrote: >> >>> >>>> Bill- the research overwhelming supports what Nancie advocates. I >>>> have >>>> an entire section of my book devoted to the research supporting SSR >>>> -- >>>> from federal studies-- as well as the research supporting reading >>>> aloud >>>> to students. >>>> >>> >>> Elaine, >>> Any chance you could offer some of the research on SSR? >>> >>> According to the NRP: >>> >>> "The Panel determined that guided repeated oral reading has a >>> significant >>> and positive impact on word recognition, reading fluency, and >>> comprehension >>> for students of all ages. However, the Panel was unable to conclude >>> that >>> independent silent reading, as the only type of reading instruction, >>> improves reading fluency." >>> >>> Silent reading can't be measured. Oral can (let's not get started on >>> fluency again!). I have a principal who likes hard numbers to back >>> up >>> my >>> strategies, and I can't find any hard numbers on SSR. That's was one >>> of my >>> issues with READING ZONE...no actual numbers backing up her claims. >>> She had >>> a couple of pages on how the research used for the NRP was >>> incomplete, >>> but >>> saying something isn't working ain't the same as saying something >>> else >>> works. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mosaic mailing list >>> Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org >>> 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 >> Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org >> 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 > Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org > 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 Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org 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 Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org 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.
