Here is more fule for the fluency discussion: http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/ORSP_Flurkey_Spring02.pdf
On 7/9/07 8:29 PM, "Dave Middlebrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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" > <mosaic@literacyworkshop.org> > 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: > > OkHere is the information from Stahl¹s 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 panel¹s research into > practice so this has the federal stamp of approval. > > Stahl was a contributor to the NRP report. What he¹s done is try to > pull together the various studies and the findings of the NRP and > discuss their implications for classroom teaching. I¹m going to outline > the chapter section by section since so that the big picture isn¹t > lost. If I have a personal comment, I¹ll 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 draftit is accurate in terms of content-- but no doubt has > spelling or grammatical errors but I¹m 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 > fluencyChall, Ehriand 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) ³accurate without too many miscues² NOTE: Stahl > uses the term ³miscues² instead of ³errors² thus appearing to validate > the conceptI 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) prosodicread with > expression to sound like language. > 4. THENand this is importantStahl (p. 188) says that these > definitions of reading (those 3 components) are over simplified and > that ³Reading, however, is more complex² > 5. He then qualifies and expands on that oversimplified definition of > fluency by saying, (p. 188) ³Teachers 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. ³Reading however is more complex. Sometimes children can be reading > accurately but do not understand what they read² 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 Pinnell¹s study > for NAEPwho found that 4th graders tested in this special study > ³showed that overall, oral reading accuracy was not significantly > related to comprehension ³(p. 188) > 9. Pinnell et all DID find however that ³significant miscues were > strongly related to comprehension. ([pp.188) > 10. Stahl then further supports the Pinnell findings that ³oral > reading accuracy was only related to comprehension In first and second > grades with correlations in third grade and beyond dropping to near > zero.² This quote is from studies by Carpenter and Parisalso a study > by Schwnaenflugel, Kuhn , Meidnhrt, Bradley and Stahl. > 11. Stahl then concludes. ³Thus, oral reading accuracy may be > important only in early grades, with other factors such as vocabulary > and comprhension strategy use becoming important later.² 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 Dave¹s 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: ³Teaching 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 faster²Then he lists a series of > studies. ³Although all of these studies found that children¹s 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. ³Competent 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 context² (p. 189) > > NOTE: What does this say about DIBELS practice in which some of the > practice/assessment isn¹t 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 ³repeated readings, neurological impress and > similar techniques² 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 PASSAGESin other words, the kids read passages > repeatedly and then their improvement or change was measured on a > posttest of the same passages. This is importantStahl 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 DIBELSHe states, DIBELS training makes kids > better in DIBELS and that¹s 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: ³ But the panel reported > [as a qualification to the positive results of expanded repeated > readings on first graders and fifth graders] > > ³It 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 Kuhn¹s 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 Stahl¹s 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: > ³That 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.² (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 SSRthey 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 > it¹s in my book so I¹m not reposting all of that. > > I20. n summary in ³putting this all together² Stahl states, ³Although > 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 level² (p.207)THAT is a vital quote that somehow I left > out of my book, darn it. > > ³Although fuencyaccuracy, rate, and prosodyis 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.² (p. 208). ³Disfluent reading can limit a child¹s > comprehension but more than fluency is needed to make a child a good > reader² (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 NOTESwhere I expand or comment on some aspect of the > research (I think I¹ve earned the right)this is not me saying > thisthis is the NRP > > I would note that the National Literacy Panel on Minority Children and > Youth reports many of the same findings as the NRPtoo much training > and focus on surface skills so kids read accurately and with > intonationbut 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 > 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. > > -- Lori Jackson District Literacy Coach & Mentor Todd County School District Box 87 Mission SD 57555 http:www.tcsdk12.org ph. 605.856.2211 Literacies for All Summer Institute "Literate Lives: A Human Right" July 12-15, 2007 Louisville, Kentucky http://www.ncte.org/profdev/conv/wlu _______________________________________________ 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.
