Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D.

 

In my previous blog posting for The Robb Review, I focused on what should be the real goal of phonics instruction – to get kids to the point where they don’t have to use phonics much in their reading.  We want students to be so proficient and efficient at word recognition that minimal attention is given to word decoding and maximum attention can be directed toward comprehension.   Staying with this theme of reading instruction goals, I’d like to focus on reading fluency and state right off the bat that the goal of fluency instruction should not be to make kids read fast.    It has been this incessant focus on increasing reading speed, I think, that has unfortunately given reading fluency a bad rep.

 

What is Reading Fluency?

Fluency has been called the neglected goal of the reading program (and it is) (Allington, 1983); it has also been called the bridge from word recognition to comprehension.     I like that bridge metaphor a lot. Fluency is the critical link to making meaning while reading. There are two components to fluency. The first is automaticity in word recognition – the ability to recognize words so effortlessly that most of a reader’s attention can be devoted to comprehension.   Automaticity is the part of the bridge that links to word recognition.

The other part of the fluency bridge is called prosody or reading with expression.  This is the link to comprehension. When a reader reads with appropriate expression that reflects the meaning of the text, she is striving to comprehend that text.    This is the part of fluency that is often neglected in instruction; yet it is critical for comprehension to occur, even when reading silently.

 

How Should We Teach Fluency?

As with anything we want to become fluent at (e.g., speaking, driving, golf, cooking), fluency is developed through practice.   In reading we have several forms of practice that can and should be employed. These forms of practice include wide reading, assisted reading where a reader reads while simultaneously hearing a fluent reading of the same text by a partner or recording, and repeated reading where a reader reads a text several times until she achieves fluency on that text (Rasinski, 2010).    In all these forms of practice the goal should be reading for meaning, and if reading orally, to read with appropriate expression that conveys meaning to anyone who may be listening.

 

How Does Reading Speed Fit into the Fluency Equation?

Reading speed (words read correctly per minute) is an indicator of word recognition automaticity and is often called the oral reading fluency (ORF) score.   The more automatic or effortless you are in recognizing words in text, the faster your reading becomes, AND the more attention you can devote to comprehending the text as opposed to analyzing the words in the text.    Reading speed is an indicator or consequence of the fluency component of automaticity, BUT it is not fluency. Our reading speed increases as our fluency improves, not the other way around. I often say that I want our children to become fast readers just the way I am and all of you reading this blog are reasonably fast readers;  but I want them to become fast the same way we all became fast readers – through lots and lots of authentic practice in reading.

So go ahead and use DIBELS and AimsWeb ORF scores, or Hasbrouck and Tindal’s norms (Words Correct per Minute) cautiously and sparingly as indicators of students’ growth in automaticity, but please please please do not let children think that you are trying to get them to read faster.   The increase in reading speed (as well as improvements in reading with expression) will happen with authentic reading practice, not with overt instruction or implied emphasis on reading fast.

  

Fluency is More than Automaticity

A few years ago I came across recordings of arguably two of the most fluently read speeches in American  history – Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” and John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address “Ask Not What Your Country…”     I subjected the oral readings of both of these speeches to an ORF (reading speed) assessment. In both cases, Dr. King and President Kennedy’s readings of their speeches may have landed them in a remedial reading class based on their very low ORF scores.     I am sure they were both automatic in their word recognition, and they could have read those speeches quickly. But doing so would have taken away from the meaning they were trying to convey. Because they were automatic in their recognition of the words in their speeches they were able to devote their attention to making and elaborating on the meaning they wished to share orally. They raised and lowered their voices, had dramatic pauses, changed volume and tone in order to more effectively to deliver their intended meanings to their audiences.   What truly made those speeches fluent was not the speed, but the expression (prosody) that they embedded in their readings.

For fluency instruction to truly work we need to see the goal of fluency as expressive oral (and silent) reading that reflects the meaning of the text.    When we make expressive and meaningful reading of texts the true goal of fluency (and avoid putting emphasis on fast reading) we will see significant improvements in reading comprehension (as well as reading speed).

 

You can find resources on teaching accurate and automatic word recognition and expressive prosodic reading (i.e. fluency) at Tim’s own website – www.timrasinski.com

 

Please see also my new book on reading fluency (written with Melissa Cheesman Smith) – The Megabook of Fluency published by Scholastic.

 

References

Allington, R.L. (1983).  Fluency: The neglected reading goal.  The Reading Teacher, 36, 556-561.

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006) Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.

Rasinski, T. V. (2010).  The fluent reader:  Oral and silent reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd edition).  New York: Scholastic.

 

Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D.

Enjoy our most popular post from Tim Rasinski! Tim will share a new post with the Robb Review on August 25!

For many of you, the title of this blog entry may sound a bit nonsensical — Why teach something and then not use it?  But let me ask you to think a bit more deeply about phonics.  If you are reading this you are likely a proficient reader.  When reading how often do you have to stop and analyze or “sound out” individual words?  My guess is that more than 99.9% of the words you encounter in reading are not analyzed or “sounded.”   Most words we encounter as proficient readers are sight words – they are recognized instantly and near effortlessly.  Phonics is hardly used at all when proficient readers read.

We need phonics and other word analysis skills in order to get words into our heads.  But after a few encounters with analyzing specific words, those words become “imprinted” in our brains as sight words.  We need phonics to get words into our internal lexicons.  But once those words are automatized or made into sight words phonics is no longer needed.

Getting words to the point of automatization is critical to proficient reading.  The problem in reading is that all of us have a limited or finite amount of attention or cognitive energy.  Analyzing words, as is done in phonics, uses up a lot of that cognitive energy.  And that energy that is applied to word analysis cannot be applied to the more important part of reading – comprehension.  So what often happens are readers who can read all the words correctly, but because they are spending their precious cognitive resources on word analysis their comprehension falters.

Carol Chomsky noted this phenomenon in her 1976 classic article entitled “After decoding: What?”  Working with struggling readers, she taught them to decode words. However, despite the fact that they were able to decode words accurately, “albeit slowly and painfully (p. 288),” they continued to struggle with reading comprehension and general proficiency in reading.  The answer to her question of “What?” was helping students develop automaticity or fluency in their reading.  She did this by having students read interesting and challenging materials while simultaneously listening to an audio-recorded version of the text.  In a 15 week intervention period (less than four months), her students made approximately 8 months of progress in reading!

Phonics is important, no question about it.  It is a tool that readers use to get words into their internal lexicons.  However, proficiency in phonics should not be the goal. Rather the goal should be to get students to the point where most of the words they encounter are automatically recognized so that their attention can be devoted to making meaning.

The way to get young readers to the point of automatic word recognition is the same way a person develops automaticity in any activity – practice.  However, the practice needs to be the kind that allows children to move to proficient reading.  Two of the best ways of providing proficient practice is through assisted reading and repeated reading.

Assisted reading is what Carol Chomsky used with her students.  Students read texts while simultaneously listening to a fluent reading of the text.  This can occur by reading with a more proficient partner, reading with a group of others, or reading while listening to a recorded version of the text.  In all of these situations, the assist of another reader provides students with a scaffold that allows them to approach fluent reading on their own.

Repeated reading simply involves reading a text multiple times until a student can read it at a level that approaches proficiency.  When students who struggle in reading read a text, the initial reading is not proficient.  However, when they read it a second, third, and perhaps even a fourth time their proficiency improves until they are able to read it much like a proficient reader.  The “magic” behind both assisted and repeated reading is that the improvement that comes from reading one text with assistance and/or repeatedly transfers to new texts that students have not previously read.  In essence, students begin to pull their reading up by their bootstraps.

While I don’t want to get overly technical in this blog, I do want to mention that, in this age of scientifically based reading instruction, a good deal of research supports both assisted and repeated reading, especially with students who find reading difficult.  In a recent review of research related to fluency interventions Stevens, Walker, and Vaughn (2017) conclude that “Results showed repeated reading,… and assisted reading with audiobooks produced gains in reading fluency and comprehension” (p. 576). My own research on the Fluency Development Lesson (Rasinski, 2010), a lesson that integrates assisted and repeated reading consistently results in improved performance in word recognition automaticity and comprehension.

While it is critical that we provide students with solid instruction in phonics or word decoding, it is equally important that we keep in mind that we need to take students to that next level word reading—fluent, automatic, and proficient reading.

References

Chomsky, C. (1976). After decoding: What? Language Arts, 53, 288-296.

Rasinski, T. V. (2010).  The fluent reader:  Oral and silent reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd edition).  New York: Scholastic.

Stevens, E., Walker, M., & Vaughn, S.  (2017). The effects of fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities:  A Synthesis of the research from 2001-2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 576-590.

 

You can find resources for teaching accurate and automatic word recognition (i.e. fluency) at Tim’s own website – www.timrasinski.com

Daily Word Ladders by Timothy Rasinski

Follow Tim on Twitter @TimRasinski1

By Gravity Goldberg

 

Let’s face it. By 1:00 pm a third of us are wishing for a diet coke, a third want a Macchiato, and another third want a power nap.  Being the kind of teacher who plans purposefully, patiently meets students where they are, and keeps up to date with the latest tips and research can be exhausting.  Of course, there are also the unplanned events that claim our attention like parent emails, unexpected meetings, and the social interactions that seep into our classrooms and fill it with peer drama and mediation. While that caffeine and sugar boost give us a quick fix it also leaves us jittery, rounder around the waist, and crashing later in the day.  This led me in search of other, healthier, and more sustainable ways to get that much-needed energy boost.

By looking at the research from positive psychology and sociology I found that one of the best things we can do for us and our students is to focus on building from strengths.  It turns out that we train our brains to look for whatever we think matters most.  If we believe that focusing on strengths is important we will begin to look for them and then find them everywhere with every student.  On the other hand, when we look for what is not working, we can also find that everywhere.  The biggest difference is that strengths make us feel good and when we feel good we are happier, more energized and more successful teachers.

Every day I sit with a reader and ask him about his process.  I get curious about what this particular reader thinks about, notices, and does as he reads. I  really listen. Then I allow myself to be impressed by what he already knows how to do.  By focusing on a reader’s strengths I fill up on positivity that can’t help but give me a boost.

After noticing a strength I explain it to the reader so he can also relish in the hard work that is paying off.  While giving the feedback I really take in his change in facial expression and demeanor.  The toothy grins, the rosy glow, all show me just how much the reader feels his pride.  His pride gives me even more of an energy boost. Finally, I sneak peeks at the reader for the rest of the day, and enjoy the energy ripples of communicating to students what they already do so well.

Of course, this does not mean I only reinforce strengths when I confer, as I also teach students strategies, but the teaching comes second.  At first, I had to train myself to look for what the reader could do so I could build from strengths.  I put sticky notes on my conferring clipboard to remind myself of my intention.  After a few weeks of daily practice it became more natural and now it is automatic.

Think this is all fluff,  like whipped cream atop a latte?  Think again—this positivity practice makes a difference.  The next day, and the next day after that, you see its impact on the reader.  In psychology, they call it the helper’s high.  In teaching, I’m thinking of it as a double shot of positive feedback that gives each of us a needed boost.

Learn more about Gravity! Check out her website!

We recommend Mindset & Moves, By Gravity Goldberg

Patty McGee

In making the case for humane teaching, I open with the courageous words that I have heard students say to their teachers:

 

A kindergartener: When you yell, it makes me sad and afraid.

 

A second grader: Please, please don’t dump my desk when it is messy.

 

A fifth grader: When you announce the highest test scores with a drum roll, it makes others feel bad, especially those who work hard and will never score the highest.

 

A seventh grader: I am having trouble learning in your class because I am afraid you are going to embarrass me by throwing my binder on the floor, too.

 

A tenth grader: The fact that my paper was the most marked up in the class does not mean I should read it aloud to my classmates.

 

These are just a few of the statements I have heard in the past few years. Students shouldn’t have to self-advocate in these ways. These pleas for compassion compel me to say:

 

We are experiencing an epidemic of inhumane teaching.

 

I state this bluntly because I cannot circle around this issue for another moment. Through actions and inactions, spoken words and stony silences, teachers are creating a hostile learning environment, whether they realize it or not. Too many students endure school days punctuated with inhumane experiences, either directed at them or their peers. Whether it’s intentional or not, and whether it’s a byproduct of being saturated in an uncivil media culture, inhumane teaching is suffocating our children. In Alfie Kohn’s description of this epidemic, he writes, “Students tend to be regarded not as subjects but as objects, not as learners but as workers. By repeating words like ‘accountability’ and ‘results’ often enough, the people who devise and impose this approach to schooling evidently succeed in rationalizing what amounts to a policy of feel-bad education.” (Kohn 2004)

 

Unrealistic expectations are being heaved onto educators, no doubt about it. It’s understandable to bristle and buckle under the pressure of accountability and raising the bar mandates. This pressure, however, does not give us educators permission to fuel inhumane learning environments. Yet it is happening. Educators have become far too comfortable saying damaging statements within earshot: These kids will never be ready for the test next year; high school is going to be a rude awakening; he is so low in math. It is hurting our students. Ultimately, it is hurting ourselves too. When we diminish students, we feel diminished.

 

I say this as someone who is guilty of misusing my power as an educator. I have outwardly shown frustration at answering the question that I already answered a half dozen times. “Okay, everyone, I am going to say this one more time. Jack, Jack, are you listening? I don’t think you are.” Even when I perpetuated seemingly neutral habits like naming students by their reading level, I was undermining learners’ confidence and capacity to learn. And every time I did something like this, whether during whole class teaching or with individual students, I felt a nugget of yuck in my gut. I am not sure I could have articulated it at the time, but now I see that it felt wrong because it was going against the very grain of my beliefs. Those were stress-fueled power plays, cheap shortcuts, and honestly, authoritarian acts.

 

It is time to commit ourselves to what feels morally sound: humane teaching.

 

Humane teaching is teaching with recognition of the learner. It springs from our own self-respect and professionalism, and an awareness that students thrive when teachers bring to their role a sense of stewardship.

 

Carl Rogers, grandfather of positive psychology and one of the great humanitarians of our time, describes this approach as “prizing the learner” and it is remarkably impactful on learning. “It is an acceptance of this other individual as a separate person, having worth in her own right… a prizing of the learner as an imperfect human being with many feelings, many potentialities.” It is the belief that all learners possess the innate desires to grow and yet are grappling with growing. “Learning is increased…. when they are simply understood – not evaluated, not judged, simply understood from their own point of view, not the teacher’s.” (Rogers 1967 304-311)

 

In line with Carl Rogers’ thinking, I am not suggesting we approach our students in a fluffy, sugary-sweet, singsongy way. That’s just nonsense and all students see right through it. Instead, I am urging us to take on courageous, brave teaching. Embrace the difficulties and the struggle of learning; accept the many complexities manifested in students and teaching without finger-pointing, blame, and humiliation. This is integral in the work we do: namely, teaching with compassion and esteem.

 

So just how do we teach with compassion and esteem? I am tempted to succinctly tell you in the numbered tips style so prevalent in all media, designed to hold the attention of a distracted population, but it’s not possible to squeeze this issue into such a format. There are no capsulized solutions.

 

So, instead, I reach out to you, requesting you to draw in close for just a bit longer so I may share a bigger message here. YOU are not the problem. If you are reading this blog, you are likely an enlightened educator who doesn’t shame students. But WE are all the problem. Let me explain. We can post, read, like, share, retweet these blogs till the cows come home, but that doesn’t seem to be stemming the tide of inhumane teaching in our schools. Instead, I want to crowdsource us and our own passion and smarts and outrage so that together, we recognize it’s time for greater collective action.

 

Within our schools, how might we use our insight and energy to help fellow educators learn more compassionate ways of interacting with students? How do we help us all be more compassionate with ourselves? It seems to me it’s done by way of a paradox— a pairing of zero-tolerance and generous, abundant curiosity about why we are resorting to those behaviors and how we might search out alternatives. It is a strict, daily commitment to prize the learners within our fold in the manner of Carl Rogers. We also must, every day, recognize and prize ourselves and our fellow educators. And when this does not happen, we act. We do not let discomfort dissuade us from addressing inhumane teaching.

 

Instead, we might choose to do what one educator, a principal who has taught me much, did to face inhumane teaching head-on. First, she acknowledged the feeling in her gut that said, “No way. These words are callous and cruel. This is not who we are.” Second, she recognized her role in the situation. She owned that in some way, shape, or form she contributed to the way teachers were speaking about students. Bravely, professionally, and compassionately, she spoke to the educators about her expectations of humane teaching and how all must grow (including herself) to prize their students, especially those who seem most challenging. From there, they all made a plan of action to study together— to study ways of educating humanely. Most importantly, they followed that plan of study together by reading, talking, teaching, and supporting one another in this work. May we all be inspired to follow this same path when advocating for educating compassionately.

 

This is brave, challenging work that requires persistence. Committing to humane teaching helps us ground ourselves in the greater purpose of the work we have been called to do, and helps us to teach from that sacred space so that learners no longer need to self-advocate for dignity. WE are the answer.

 

~~

Resources

Alfie Kohn Feel-Bad Education

Carl Rogers Infed

 

~~

Patty’s book is on Amazon.

 

Learn more about Patty: check out her website.

 

Follow Patty on Twitter @pmgmcgee