Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency
Tóm tắt
Over the past decade, fluent reading has come to be seen as a central component of skilled reading and a driving force in the literacy curriculum. However, much of this focus has centered on a relatively narrow definition of reading fluency, one that emphasizes automatic word recognition. This article attempts to expand this understanding by synthesizing several key aspects of research on reading fluency, including theoretical perspectives surrounding automaticity and prosody. It examines four major definitions of reading fluency and their relationship to accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. A proposed definition is presented. Finally, the implications of these definitions for current assessment and instruction are considered along with suggestions for reenvisioning fluency's role within literacy curriculum.
عبر العقد الماضي أصبحت مرونة القراءة عنصراً محورياً لمهارة القراءة والقوة القائدة في المنهاج الدراسي المتعلق بمعرفة القراءة والكتابة. ومع ذلك تمحور كثيراً من هذا التركيز على تعريف ضيق نسبياً لدى المرونة القرائية وهو الذي يشدد على التعريف التلقائي على الكلمة. لذا تحاول هذه المقالة إلى توسيع هذا الفهم من خلال تضافر بضعة مظاهر رئيسية من الأبحاث المتعلقة بمرونة القراءة بما فيها أبعاد نظرية حول التلقائية والنثرية. وتفحص المقالة أربعة تعاريف رئيسية لمرونة القراءة وعلاقتها بالدقة والتلقائية والنثرية. ولقد تم تقديم تعريف محتمل وأخيراً يتم الأخذ بعين الاعتبار عواقب هذه التعاريف للتقييم والتعليم بالإضافة إلى إعادة النظر في دور المرونة في منهاج معرفة القراءة والكتابة الدراسي.
在过去十年期间，阅读流畅已被视为熟练阅读的主要部分，亦是读写能力课程的一种驱动力。然而，这种看法大部分聚焦于一个较为狭隘的阅读流畅定义上，只强调自动化识别单字。本文尝试综合处理有关阅读流畅研究的几个主要方面，包括与自动化程度及音韵表达相关的理论观点，藉以增加对阅读流畅的认识。本文检视四个主要的阅读流畅定义，及其与准确性、自动化程度、音韵表达之间的关系，并提出一个较为广阔的阅读流畅定义。最后，本文考量这些定义给目前的评估与教学带来的启示，以及建议重新展望阅读流畅在读写课程中所扮演的角色。
Au cours des dix dernières années, la lecture courante est devenue une composante centrale du savoir lire et une locomotive dans les programmes de littératie. Cependant, une large part de cet intérêt s'est centré sur une définition relativement étroite de la lecture courante, celle qui met l'accent sur la reconnaissance automatique des mots. Cet article se propose d'élargir cette compréhension en faisant la synthèse d'aspects majeurs des recherches relatifs à la lecture courante, notamment des perspectives théoriques concernant l'automaticité, et de la prosodie. Nous proposons une définition alternative. Nous considérons enfin les implications de ces définitions pour l'enseignement et l'évaluation actuels ainsi que des suggestions en vue d'un réexamen du rôle de la lecture courante dans les programmes de littératie.
За последнее десятилетие беглость стала основным критерием качества чтения и краеугольным камнем учебных программ по становлению грамотности. Однако само представление о беглости зачастую выглядит достаточно однобоко: упор делается исключительно на автоматическое опознавание слов. Авторы статьи пытаются расширить это представление, синтезировав ключевые аспекты беглости, фигурирующие в различных исследованиях и теоретических работах. Авторы рассматривают четыре существующих определения беглого чтения и их связь с точностью, автоматизмом и просодией и предлагают свое, синтезированное определение. Затем обсуждается значение этих определений для подхода к обучению и оцениванию и предлагается пересмотреть роль такого параметра, как беглость чтения, в программах по развитию грамотности.
En los últimos diez años, leer con fluidez se ha convertido en un componente central de la lectura hábil y una fuerza principal del currículo de alfabetización. Sin embargo, gran parte de este esfuerzo se ha enfocado en una definición muy restringida de la fluidez al leer: reconocer palabras automáticamente. Este artículo trata de expandir este entendimiento juntando varios aspectos claves de la investigación sobre la fluidez al leer, entre ellos perspectivas teóricas sobre la automaticidad y la prosodia. Se examinan cuatro definiciones fundamentales de la fluidez al leer y su relación a la precisión, la automaticidad, y la prosodia. Se sugiere una definición. Por último, se consideran las implicaciones de estas definiciones para la evaluación y la instrucción hoy día y se hacen sugerencias para volver a pensar sobre el rol de la fluidez en el currículo de alfabetización.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adams M.J., 1990, Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print
Afflerbach P.(2004).High stakes testing and reading assessment: National Reading Conference brief. Retrieved November 30 2009 fromwww.nrconline.orgpublicationsHighStakesTestingandReadingAssessment.pdf.
Allington R.L., 1983, Fluency: The neglected reading goal, The Reading Teacher, 36, 556
Allington R.L.(2009 February).New challenges for literacy researchers. Keynote address given at the annual International Reading Association Reading Research Conference Phoenix AZ.
Bear D.R., 1998, Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundations for learning and teaching phonics, spelling, and vocabulary, The Reading Teacher, 52, 222
Benjamin R. &Schwanenflugel P.J.(2009).Text complexity and oral reading prosody in young readers. Unpublished manuscript University of Georgia Athens.
Benjamin R. Schwanenflugel P.J. &Kuhn M.R.(2009 May).The predictive value of prosody: Differences between simple and difficult texts in the reading of 2nd graders. Presentation to the College of Education Research Conference University of Georgia Athens.
Bredekamp S. &Pikulski J.(2008).Preventing reading difficulties in young children: Cognitive factors. Keynote address presented at the International Reading Association Preconference Institute #8 Atlanta GA.
Cervetti G.N., 2009, Reading more, reading better, 79
Chall J.S., 1996, Stages of reading development
Chard D.J., 2006, Fluency instruction: Research‐based best practices, 39
Chomsky C., 1976, After decoding: What?, Language Arts, 53, 288
Cunningham A.E., 1998, What reading does for the mind, American Educator, 22, 8
Daane M.C., 2005, Fourth‐grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading. The nation's report card (NCES 2006469)
Deno S.L., 2006, What research has to say about fluency instruction, 179
Dubin J., 2008, Reading Richmond: How scientifically based reading instruction is dramatically increasing achievement, American Educator, 32, 28
Eisler F.G., 1968, Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech
Erekson J.(2003 May).Prosody: The problem of expression in fluency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association Orlando FL.
Fletcher J.M., 2007, Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention
Fodor J.D.(2002 April).Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. Speech Prosody 2002 International Conference Aix‐en‐Provence France.
Gamse B.C., 2008, Reading First impact study: Interim report (NCEE 2008‐4016)
Garcia G.E., 2009, Handbook of research on literacy and diversity, 233
Glasswell K., 2007, Classroom literacy assessment: Making sense of what students know and do, 262
Good R.H., 2002, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
Good R.H., 2001, Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes‐driven model: Steps to reading outcomes, Oregon School Study Council, 44, 6
Harris T.L., 1995, The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing
Hasbrouck J.(2006 Summer).Drop everything and read—but how? American Educator. Retrieved November 30 2009 fromwww.aft.orgpubs‐reportsamerican_educatorissuessummer06fluency.htm.
Hiebert E.H.(2004 April).Teaching children to become fluent readers—Year 2. Presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association San Diego CA.
Hiebert E.H., 2006, What research has to say about fluency instruction, 204
Himmelmann N.P., 2008, Prosodic description: An introduction for field workers, Language Documentation & Conservation, 2, 244
Kame'enui E.J., 2001, Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain, 307
Kleiman G.M., 1979, Prosody and children's parsing of sentences (Tech. Rep. No. 123)
Kuhn M.R., 2007, Classroom literacy assessment: Making sense of what students know and do, 101
Levy B.A., 2001, Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain, 357
Mathson D.V., 2006, Fluency instruction: Research‐based best practices, 106
McKenna M.C., 2003, Assessment for reading instruction
Meisinger E.B., 2008, Fluency in the classroom, 36
Meisinger E.B. Bradley B.A. Schwanenflugel P.J. &Kuhn M.(in press).Teachers' perceptions of word callers and related literacy concepts.School Psychology Review.
Mostow J. &Beck J.(2005 June).Micro‐analysis of fluency gains in a reading tutor that listens. Paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Toronto Canada.
Mostow J. &Duong M.(2009 July).Automated assessment of oral reading expressiveness. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education Brighton England.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, 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 (NIH Publication No. 00‐4769)
O'Shea L.J., 1987, The effects of repeated readings and attentional cues on the reading fluency and comprehension of learning disabled readers, Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 103
Paris S.G.(2008 December).Constrained skills—so what?Oscar Causey address presented at the National Reading Conference Orlando FL.
Perfetti C.A., 1985, Reading ability
Perfetti C.A., 1992, Reading acquisition, 145
Pikulski J.(2005 May).The critical nature of building vocabulary in early literacy. Keynote presented at the International Reading Association Preconference Institute #8 San Antonio TX.
Pinnell G.S., 1995, Listening to children read aloud: Data from NAEP's integrated reading performance record (IRPR) at Grade 4. The Nation's Report Card. Report No. 23‐FR‐04
Pluck M., 2006, Fluency instruction: Research‐based best practices, 192
Pressley M., 2000, Handbook of reading research, 545
Pressley M., 2006, An evaluation of end‐grade‐3 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little
RAND Reading Study Group, 2002, Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension
Rasinski T.V., 2004, Assessing reading fluency
Rasinski T.V., 2006, What research has to say about fluency instruction, 4
Rasinski T.V, 2006, Fluency instruction: Research‐based best practices
Rasinski T.V., Handbook of reading research
Reutzel D.R., 1996, How to become a better reading teacher: Strategies for assessment and intervention, 241
Reutzel D.R.(2003 May).Fluency: What is it? How to assess it? How to develop it!Paper presented at Reading Research 2003 Orlando FL.
Samuels S.J., 2004, Theoretical models and processes, 1127
Samuels S.J., 2006, Fluency instruction: Research‐based best practices, 7
Samuels S.J., 2007, The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency?, Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 563
Samuels S.J., 2006, What research has to say about fluency instruction
Sanderman A.A., 1997, Prosodic phrasing and comprehension, Language and Speech, 40, 391, 10.1177/002383099704000405
Schreiber P.A., 1991, Understanding prosody's role in reading acquisition, Theory Into Practice, 30, 158, 10.1080/00405849109543496
Schwanenflugel P.J. Hamilton C.E. Neuharth‐Pritchett S. Restrepo M.A. Bradley B.A. &Webb M.‐Y.(in press).PAVEd for success: An Evaluation of a comprehensive literacy program for 4‐year‐old children.Journal of Literacy Research.
Schwanenflugel P.J. Kuhn M.R. Meisinger E.B. &Morris R.D. Foels P. Woo D.G. et al.(2008 March).A longitudinal study of the development of reading fluency and comprehension in the early elementary school years. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association New York NY.
Schwanenflugel P.J., 2008, Fluency in the classroom, 1
Schwebel E.A.(2007).A comparative study of small group fluency instruction—A replication and extension of Kuhn's (2005) study.Unpublished master's thesis Kean University Union NJ.
Shanahan T.(2005 May).Improving instruction for young children: Making sense of the National Literacy Panel. Paper presented at the International Reading Association Preconference Institute #8 San Antonio TX.
Shapiro E.S., 2004, Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention
Shinn M.R., 2002, AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement
Sibley D. Biwer D. &Hesch A.(2001).Establishing curriculum‐based measurement oral reading fluency performance standards to predict success on local and state tests of reading achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453527).
Snow C.E., 1998, Preventing reading difficulties in young children
Stanovich K.E., 1981, A longitudinal study of the development of automatic recognition skills in first graders, Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 57, 10.1080/10862968109547394
Stecker S.K., 1998, 47th yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 295
Sweet A.P., 2003, Rethinking reading comprehension
Torgesen J.K., 2006, What research has to say about fluency instruction, 130
Wennerstrom A., 2001, The music of everyday speech: Prosody and discourse analysis, 10.1093/oso/9780195143218.001.0001
Wixson K.K. &Lipson M.Y.(2009 May).Response to intervention: Promises possibilities and potential problems for reading professionals. Paper presented at the Reading Research Conference Minneapolis MN.