I think it is important to note that the wide reading group in the Kuhn et al study actually did quite a bit of repeated reading, so I think the name wide reading may be a bit misleading.
I think the concern that is raised in Elaine's post goes back to what I have been concerned about for a long time -- fluency instruction, the way it is now advocated by many experts, tends to focus on accuracy and speed, not so much on meaning. I view fluency as the gateway to comprehension, so I look for texts that are have a strong sense of voice (to encourage prosodic reading) and are meant to be performed for meaning (poetry, songs, scripts) in order for the repeated reading to happen. This is a more natural approach that focuses the reader's attention on both issues of fluency and meaning. My own work has found that such an approach does lead to gains in comprehension beyond what might normally be expected. In the singing study I referenced a couple days ago, the gains we were most excited about were gains in the comprehension assessment that were administered. 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 elaine garan Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 1:17 PM To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group Subject: [MOSAIC] Corrections!! > In my last post, I said that the research by Melanie Kuhn used 2 > groups-- one trained in fluency measures such as echo reading and > repeated readings-- the text was read over and over and the number of > books was limited-- and another group that did not do repeated reading > but read a way wider range of books. I made two errors. > First error: There were actually 3 groups-- a third group was only a > listening group. They listened to stories but didn't receive any other > treatment. So my first error was the number of groups. Second error- I said that the wide reading group improved in comprehension but not in fluency. That's wrong. The wide reading group (read lots, a wide range of stories on a daily basis) did indeed improve in fluency. They also improved in comprehension, BUT the fluency focus group did not improve in comprehension. They only improved in fluency. Here is Kuhn's explanation for what happened. She cites other research supporting this phenomena and hypothesizes that because the fluency focus group was trained in fluency measures such as echo reading and repeated readings, they appeared to think that was what mattered. The wide reading group on the other hand, did improve in fluency but because their attention was not distracted/focused on fluency, they put their energy into enjoyment and comprehension and fluency was a natural outgrowth of that. It's sort of the "If you build it, it will come" approach. If you build comprehension and have kids do lots of reading, fluency will follow and readers will become as fluent as they need to be. Here's the quote from Kuhn's research with citations from others who made similar findings. Again, if you want the whole article, email me and I'll send it to you: Because the FOOR (Focus On Fluency group) approach incorporated significant amounts of repetition, students may have seen word recognition and expression as the dominant focus. While the students enjoyed the stories selected, each story, or portion of a story, was reread several times. Given this pattern, it is possible that, after the initial reading, the students focused their attention on expression and accurate word recognition rather than on the text's meaning. It is also possible that they brought this understanding to their posttests, resulting in gains in prosody and word recognition but not in comprehension. The wide-reading group, on the other hand, read a new book at each session. As a result, comprehension, expression, and word recognition may have been viewed as having equivalent importance. It could be that the students developed a broader implicit focus, one that included the understanding and enjoyment of the stories as well as the accurate and expressive reading of the text. It is equally possible that this focus carried over to the posttesting and led to the wide-reading group's growth in comprehension as well as in word recognition and prosody. Similar findings were noted in two previous studies designed to assist readers in their fluency development (O'Shea, Sindelar, & O'Shea, 1985, 1987). O'Shea et al. argued that while repeated readings led to improved levels of fluency, learners did not automatically shift their attention to the comprehension of text. Instead, they felt it might be necessary to actively focus the readers' attention on the content of a passage in order to show improvements in their comprehension. Their research indicated that such a focus did indeed lead to improvements in the students' ability to construct meaning from text. Anderson, Wilkinson, and Mason (1991) also reported similar findings when working with small groups of third graders using a guided reading lesson. They found that when the focus of a lesson was on meaning, students made greater gains in comprehension than when the focus was on word analysis and accurate reading. These findings were stronger for the low and average readers than for their more skilled peers. Therefore, it seems a reasonable possibility that learners may look toward whatever cues exist, whether implicit or explicit, to decide where to focus their attention during reading. > _______________________________________________ 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.
