Of course, this doesn't answer the original question about RN, but I think it needs said just the same. When the National Reading Panel suggested Fluency as a pillar, they had no idea that it would morph into Speed. It's pretty much a no-brainer that children need to read fluently in order to comprehend. The break-down in our understanding comes when we try to use speed alone as a measure of something it may OR MAY NOT reflect-- which is enough fluency to comprehend. We need information about how well a child is reading fluently so we go to oral reading which is "visible" and we think counts for a lot in our diagnosis of fluency/dysfluency because we can "see" fluency in silent reading. This, however, presents a big problem. Fluent oral reading is rarely needed as readers progress thorough life AND dysfluent oral reading does NOT show us whether a child is fluent. What would show us better would be comprehension assessment. If they can comprehend, they are reading fluently enough to do what we need them to do, no matter how fast or slow they read.
Also, put practically, is that if a child who has the enormous learning capacity of childhood rereads the same passage over and over, you will not see how fluent he is. What you have an extraordinary opportunity to see how fast children really can memorize, especially if the text is meaningful discourse. And once any particular child memorizes the passage, what you get is a recitation, not a reading. Picture a 4-year old saying the Pledge of Allegiance and extend that. A child has a powerful ability to memorize and if you're (the child) reading passages orally with someone measuring the speed (what they think is fluency), you will inadvertently memorize the passage and recite it as your eyes run through the text. You have to keep the end goal in sight: fluent reading to aid in comprehension. There's no legitimate need for it to be oral--that's how we tried to figure out how to measure fluency. There's no legitimate need for it to be fast. Again, that's how we try to measure something that was superimposed onto the fluency discussion. Fast just doesn't matter on its own; it matters only if it impacts comprehension. And, believe me, it doesn't always. Sorry...I know this isn't helpful when you ask about programs. But just maybe thinking about a couple of issues will help. There are some EXCELLENT fluency books out there that I highly recommend: Reading Fluency: Process, Practice, and Policy by Bess Altwerger, Nancy Jordan and Nancy Rankie Shelton; What Research Has to Say about Fluency Instruction edited by S. Jay Samuels and Alan E. Farstrup; and Practical Fluency by Max Brand and Gayle Brand. With summer coming, perhaps you and your colleagues will have a chance to read those books, jigsaw your understandings from the books, and design a fluency program that is more effective than Read Naturally. Check out its absence in What Works Clearinghouse. On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Bieger, Reva RB < reva.bie...@carroll.kyschools.us> wrote: > I have used both versions of Read Naturally and liked it. It has engaging > non-fiction passages. It is very good for fluency but it does little for > comprehension. The program is only as good as the teacher running it. I > have found that it is important to do goal setting with the students. > hey are after." Henry David Thoreau _______________________________________________ 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
