Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j06GDEb01041; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:13:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:13:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1d8.340c00ac.2f0ebc92@aol.com>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: MWPotts2001@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2910] What works in fluency instruction
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5036
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Status: O
Content-Length: 5552
Lines: 105
Colleagues,
Tom Sticht's interesting message earlier this week said that fluency is not a
"component of reading" as described in the US DOE description of the Reading
First Act. Rather, he said
"It [fluency) is the quality of a performance. In reading it refers to
reading that is executed
without a lot of mistakes, not in a slow, halting, recursive manner but
rather in a
regular left to right, progressive moving, fairly rapid (around 200-250 words
per minute) manner when reading materials of some familiarity."
Have you heard some people say that fluency cannot be taught? With enough
reading practice, they say, it "just happens."
So, I am posting an article that discusses an opposing view, citing two
instructional approaches. Note that the authors refer to fluency as a "critical
factor" and as a "component" of reading. (They had not read Tom's message, yet!)
All the Best,
Meta Potts, Moderator 4-EFF List
What Works in Fluency Instruction
Fluent readers are able to read orally with speed, accuracy, and proper
expression. Fluency is one of several critical factors necessary for reading
comprehension.
Despite its importance as a component of skilled reading, fluency is often
neglected in the classroom. This is unfortunate. If text is read in a laborious
and inefficient manner, it will be difficult for the student to remember what
has been read and to relate the ideas expressed in the text to his or her
background knowledge.
Recent research on the efficacy of certain approaches to teaching fluency has
led to increased recognition of its importance in the classroom and to
changes in instructional practices.
Two instructional approaches, each of which has several variations, have
typically been used to teach reading fluency. One approach, called *guided
repeated oral reading, * encourages students to read passages orally with systematic
and explicit guidance and feedback from the teacher. The other approach,
called *independent silent reading, * encourages students to read silently on their
own, inside and outside the classroom, with minimal guidance or feedback.
Guided Oral Reading
The National Reading Panel concluded that repeated oral reading procedures
that included guidance from teachers, peers, or parents had a significant and
positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and comprehension across a range
of grade levels.
These studies were conducted in a variety of classrooms in both regular and
special education settings with teachers using widely available instructional
materials. These results also apply to all students – good readers as well as
those experiencing reading difficulties.
[Editor's note: Here's an article called "What is Guided Oral Reading?" that
explains how teachers can use this instructional method.]
Independent Silent Reading
There has been widespread agreement that encouraging students to engage in
wide, independent, silent reading increases reading achievement. Literally
hundreds of correlational studies find that the best readers read the most and that
poor readers read the least.
These correlational studies suggest that the more that students read, the
better their fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. However, these findings are
correlational in nature, and correlation does not imply causation. No doubt,
it could be that the more that students read, the more their reading skills
improve, but it is also possible that better readers simply choose to read more.
With regard to the efficacy of having students engage in independent silent
reading with minimal guidance or feedback, the Panel was unable to find a
positive relationship between programs and instruction that encourage large amounts
of independent reading and improvements in reading achievement, including
fluency.
In other words, even though encouraging students to read more is intuitively
appealing, there is still not sufficient research evidence obtained from
studies of high methodological quality to support the idea that such efforts
reliably increase how much students read or that such programs result in improved
reading skills. Given the extensive use of these techniques, it is important
that such research be conducted.
It should be made clear that these findings do not negate the positive
influence that independent silent reading may have on reading fluency, nor do the
findings negate the possibility that wide independent reading significantly
influences vocabulary development and reading comprehension. Rather, there are
simply not sufficient data from well-designed studies capable of testing
questions of causation to substantiate causal claims.
The available data do suggest that independent silent reading is not an
effective practice when used as the only type of reading instruction to develop
fluency and other reading skills, particularly with students who have not yet
developed critical alphabetic and word reading skills. In sum, methodologically
rigorous research designed to assess the specific influences that independent
silent reading practices have on reading fluency and other reading skills and
the motivation to read has not yet been conducted.
References
Excerpted and adapted from the Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching
Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research
Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (April 2000.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:20 EST