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

[Jan Turbill]

Thanks Tom
That's how I view it and would like our teachers to also have this view.

Jan

Sent from my iPod
02 4448 5017
0438098641

On 06/11/2009, at 6:45 AM, "tsticht at znet.com" <tsticht at znet.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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