Hi, Tim-- I totally agree with you that fluency instruction and I'd add assessments tend to focus on speed and accuracy and not so much on meaning. Fluency is the gateway to comprehension for beginning readers. I think where I'd look at it from perhaps a slightly different perspective. i don't think it's different. I think the research shows and I believe what you're saying is not just that fluency is the gateway to comprehension but that comprehension is the gateway to fluency as well. They are reciprocal processes. Each enhances and expands the other. And I agree with Kuhn that if you somehow get kids to be thinking about fluency the focus on that and meaning falls by the wayside.
What do you think about this analogy? Reading is complex. In some ways, it's like riding a bicycle. If you stop and think real hard about what you're doing, you fall off. there has to be a flow to the process. If we focus on any skill, be it fluency or phonics or even as Nancie Atwell points out-- the comprehension strategy it can detract from the flow. I don't think I'm saying fluency isn't important. I don't believe that. But what I believe is that if we tell kids to think about it, they will. And if they think about it and particularly if they get stressed about it and if they're timed as they read on a regular basis, they will believe that reading is speed and accuracy. So i love the ideas of songs and readers theater because it addresses fluency but it does so in a natural way. It's authentic. It's not, "Here read this and sound good" It's here's a really cool play or a neat song-- it only makes sense to give it our all and our voice and in a sense make it our own. That's really what fluency is about I think. It's about giving voice to what we read (in our heads even) so that it becomes personalized. Timed reading with stopwatches does not do that. Songs and readers theater and wonderful shared readings and read alouds do. It's here's the REASON for fluency beyond, it's good to read fast and accurately. It's "Here's how fluency helps us personalize and enhance what we read or sing." When kids get older, I think it's more that comprehension builds fluency and fluency starts to recede in importance as a sjukk since most reading we do beyond first grade of when we're assessing kids is silent anyway. But if we see fluency for its authentic purpose, then we remain fluent in our heads when we read sileently and it goes way beyond simple prosody and accuracy and absolutely beyond speed since good readers vary their reading rates. What I really liked about what TiM said is how you can't detach meaning from the process. You can't isolate the reader from the process either. By finding engaging books with lots of voice we engage kids, comprehension is extended and fluency comes along. It is absolutely impossible for example to read a decodable text fluently because any such reading must necessarily lack prosody since the language is stilted and unnatural. And I think the kareoke (sp) idea is brilliant. I On Monday, June 25, 2007, at 09:39 AM, RASINSKI, TIMOTHY wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
