[Reading-hall-of-fame] RE: Reading-hall-of-fame Digest, Vol 42, Issue 1

[tsticht at znet.com]

Yetta et al. In my way of thinking, fluency is not a component of reading,
even if the government says it is. Instead fluency refers to the quality of
a performance, much as you indicate in talking about the hesitant,
regressful reading, or the intoned, expressive, dramatic rendering of what
is being read during reading aloud.

Tom Sticht


Quoting Yetta Goodman <ygoodman at u.arizona.edu>:

> To: Don, Jan, Arthur, Jay, Tom, David, David, Gay....   and interested
> others .....
>
> I think this discussion is wonderful and I appreciate the thoughtful
> interactions taking place and the discussion needs to continue.
> I agree that these are the kinds of discussions that are great on a RHF
> listserve and provide a venue for serious questioning.
>
> One of the issues that I have addressed during my research with miscue
> analysis and now with eye movements is to understand what a fluent
> reader is.   I tend not to use the term because I'm never sure what
> people mean when it is used.
> I don't believe that readers who are engaged in serious thinking while
> they are reading have a rate across a text that can be averaged and
> still tell the researcher/teacher/listener important information about
> the process of the reader.
>
> I have come to believe that a "fluent" reader is an oral reader who is
> doing a dramatic reading -- usually practiced.
>
> Our miscue analysis clearly documents that there are many readers who
> read slowly, make lots of miscues and comprehend well (according to oral
> or written retellings).  Since comprehension is the goal for reading, I
> need to be able to explain the miscues and slow rate of such readers.
> Then there are readers who make very few miscues, read with animated
> intonation and are not able to retell what they have read.  We discover
> that the complexity of sytax, the  familiarity with the genre, and the
> knowledge/semantic content of a text are all involved in miscues and
> rate. Readers who are flexible and have background knowledge of the text
> are able to balance these various features of text and conclude their
> reading with comprehension. The same reader reads different texts
> differently depending on these important features of the context of a
> story or article.
>
> Alan Flurkey (Hofstra University) has carefully analyzed miscue analysis
> and reading rates and shows how all readers have variable rates
> throughout the reading of a whole story or article.  He uses the
> metaphor "flow" to explain the ebbs and flows that readers make as they
> read through a text orally.   Even proficient readers have hesitations,
> slow starts, repeats and read fast but their overall rate is not
> consistent throughout a text.  Eye movement research with miscue
> analysis (EMMA) done by Eric Paulson (University of Cincinatti) among
> others also shows the flexibility and variation of readers across a
> whole text.  The eye is ahead of the mouth in eye movement research so
> the information readers get during a fixation is based on what they are
> already predicting and what they know prior to their reading.  Both of
> these researchers have articles in *Scientific Realism in Studies of
> Reading* by Flurkey, Paulson and K. Goodman Earlbaum, 2008
>
> Many of the comments regarding the fluency issue in this list serve are
> very important because they raise questions about "fluency" that have
> for too long not be addressed.   Perhaps this discussion  suggests a RHF
> sponsored session on fluency at the 2011 IRA conference.     I certainly
> hope this conversation continues.
>
> Yetta Goodman
>
> Arthur N Applebee wrote:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > I think you are touching on a central issue---the difference between
> > novice and expert may be a function of the knowledge of the domain
> > gained through cumulative experience, rather than the attainment of
> > specific knowledge or skills through direct instruction.  But we often
> > focus on the skills, rather than the guided immersion in the domain
> > that leads to productive cumulative experience.  We framed our AERJ
> > study of discussion-based approaches to the development of
> > understanding in part in terms of the literature on comprehension
> > strategies, but the results suggest that the process of sustained and
> > focused discussion, without an emphasis on specific comprehension
> > strategies, has a powerful effect on learning.   Our work was with
> > middle and high school students, but I think the general principle is
> > true across ages.
> >
> > Arthur
> >
> > (Arthur N. Applebee, J. Langer, M. Nystrand, & A. Gamoran,
> > Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom
> > instruction and student performance in middle and high school English.
> > /American Educational Research Journal/ 40:3, 685-730, 2003. )
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> > [mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] *On
> > Behalf Of *David Olson
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:54 PM
> > *To:* Jay Samuels
> > *Cc:* reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> > *Subject:* Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] RE: Reading-hall-of-fame Digest,
> > Vol 42, Issue 1
> >
> >
> >
> > Jay et al:
> >
> > In my view "processing speed" is merely a reflection of one's
> > knowledge.  But I think the question raises a more general question.
> >  In reviewing a bunch of papers on literacy, it occurred to me that
> > there is a considerable gap among experts (like ourselves) on the
> > following issue:
> >
> > Do tested differences between the good and poor readers, the literate
> > and the non/less literate, provide a reliable guide as to what should
> > be taught.
> >
> > I think not.  And that included speed of processing.  Whereas
> > most/many literacy researchers seem to think that if good/poor readers
> > differ on, say, short term memory for letters, vocabulary, sentence
> > comprehension, inferencing, etc. that implies that such  "skills"
> > should be taught.  That assumption is taken for granted by most
> > prescriptive reading programs.  I don't agree.
> >
> > How about you?
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
> > Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> > http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
> >
>
>