Showing posts with label Oral Reading Fluency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oral Reading Fluency. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Are Oral Reading Norms Accurate with Complex Text?

Teacher Question:  
          A question has come up that I don't know how to address and I would love your input.  For years, we have used the Hasbrook/Tindal fluency norms as one of the ways we measure our student's reading progress.  For example, the 4th grade midyear 50th percentile is 112 CWPM.  The fourth grade team has chosen a mid-year running record passage and is finding that many of students have gone down instead of up in their CWPM.  One teacher said that is because the common-core aligned texts are more challenging and that the passage is really the equivalent of what used to be considered a 5th grade passage. She said that the norms were done using text that is easier than what the students are now expected to read. I know that the texts are more complex and challenging and therefore more difficult for the students to read, and that this particular text may not be a good choice to use for an assessment, But it does raise the larger question--are these fluency norms still applicable?

Shanahan response:
         This is a great question, and one that I must admit I hadn’t thought about before you raised it. If average fourth-graders read texts at about 112 words correct per minute by mid-fourth-grade, one would think that their accuracy and/or speed would be affected if they were then asked to read texts that in the past would have been in the fifth-grade curriculum.

         However, while that assumption seems to make sense, it would depend on how those norms were originally established. Were kids asked to read texts characteristic of their grade levels at particular times of the year or was the text agenda wider than that? If the latter, then the complex text changes we are going through would not necessarily matter very much.

         So what’s the answer to your question? I contacted Jan Hasbrouck, the grand lady herself, and put your question to her. Here is her response:

         I guess the most honest answer is "who knows?" I hope that we may actually have an answer to that question by this spring or summer because Jerry Tindal and I are in the process of collecting ORF data to create a new set of norms, which should reflect more current classroom  practice.

         My prediction is that the new ORF norms won't change much from our 2006 norms (or our 1992 norms). My prediction is based on the fact that ORF is, outside of expected measurement error (which Christ & Coolong-Chaffin, 2007 suggest is in the range of 5 wcpm for grades 1 and 2 and 9 wcpm in grades 3-8+), fairly stable. You can see evidence of this on our 2006 norms when looking at the spring 50th %iles for grades 6 (150), grade 7 (150), and grade 8 (151). When you think that these three scores represent approximately 30,000 students reading a variety of grade level passages that pretty darn stable. Other studies of older readers (high school; college) also find that 150 wcpm is a common "average.”

         Of course this stability assumes that the ORF scores were obtained correctly, using the required standardized procedures, which unfortunately is too often not the case. Standardized ORF procedures require that students read aloud for 60 seconds from unpracticed samples of grade level passages, and the performance is scored using the standardized procedures for counting errors. In my experience most educators are doing these required steps correctly. However, I see widespread errors being made in another step in the required ORF protocol: Students must try to do their best reading (NOT their fastest reading)!  In other words, in an ORF assessment the student should be attempting to read the text in a manner that mirrors normal, spoken speech (Stahl & Kuhn, 2002) and with attention to the meaning of the text. 

         What I witness in schools (and hear about from teachers, specialists, and administrators in the field) is that students are being allowed and even encouraged to read as fast as they can during ORF assessments, completely invalidating the assessment. The current (2006) Hasbrouck & Tindal norms were collected before the widespread and misguided push to ever faster reading.  It remains to be seen if students are in fact reading faster. Other data, including NAEP data, suggests that U.S. students are not reading "better."

         And yes, of course the number of words read correctly per minute (wcpm) would be affected if students were asked to read text that is very easy for them or very difficult, but again, ORF is a standardized measure that can serve as an indicator of reading proficiency. 

         Given Jan's response, I assume the norms won’t change much. The reason for this is that they don’t have tight control of the data collection—reading procedures and texts varying across sites (not surprising with data on 250,000 readers). That means that the current norms do not necessarily reflect the reading of a single level of difficulty, and I suspect that the future norms determinations won’t have such tight control either. 

         The norms are averages and they still will be; that suggests using them as rough estimates rather than exact statistics (a point worth remembering when trying to determine if students are sufficiently fluent readers). 

          Last point: your fourth-grade teachers are correct that the texts they are testing with may not be of equivalent difficulty, which makes it difficult to determine whether or not there are real gains (or losses) being made. We've known for a long time that text difficulty varies a great deal from passage to passage. Just because you take a selection from the middle of a fourth-grade textbook, doesn't mean that passage is a good representation of appropriate text difficulty. That is true even if you know the Lexile rating of the overall chapter or article that you have drawn from (since difficulty varies across text). The only ways to be sure would be to do what Hasbrouck and Tindal did--use a lot of texts and assume the average is correct; or measure the difficulty of each passage used for assessment. The use of longer texts (having kids read for 2-3 minutes instead of 1) can improve your accuracy, too.

How to Improve Reading Achievement Powerpoint

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Fluency Instruction for Older Kids, Really?

School Administrator Question:  Dr. Shanahan...for grades 3-5 does it make sense to use classroom time to have students partner read? If our ultimate goal is improving silent reading comprehension, I wonder at this age level if we are not using time efficiently.

Shanahan's response.:
I get this question a lot. Since our kids are going to be tested on their silent reading comprehension, why should we bother to have them practice oral reading? The purpose quite simply is that oral reading practice has been found to have a positive impact on students’ silent reading comprehension. The National Reading Panel reviewed 16 experimental studies in which students practiced their oral reading with a partner (e.g., parents, teachers, other students, and in one case, a computer), with rereading (they should be reading texts that are relatively hard, not ones they can read fluently on a first attempt), and with feedback (someone who helps them when they make mistakes). In 15 or the 16 studies, the kids who were engaged in this kind of activity ended up outperforming the control students in silent reading comprehension. There have been many additional studies since that time—across a variety of ages, with similar results.

Although oral reading practice improves oral reading that isn’t the reason we do it. We want students to practice making the text sound meaningful—which means reading the authors’ words accurately, reading with sufficient speed (the speed of language—not hurrying or racing through a text), and with proper expression or prosody (putting the pauses in the right places, making the text understandable to English speakers). As they learn to do that with increasingly complex texts, their ability to do that with silent reading improves.

Teachers are often told to stop this in the primary grades, and the Common Core standards only include fluency teaching through grade 5, but by 8th grade, oral reading fluency differences still explain 25% of the variance in reading comprehension. In other words, if you could make all the 13-year-olds equal in fluency, you’d reduce the comprehension differences by 25%.

It’s not an either/or, of course, I prescribe both fluency instruction and comprehension instruction and the latter would definitely include silent reading of the texts. You could also argue for additional silent reading comprehension practice in social studies and science reading. However, if you only have kids practicing their silent reading, then you are slowing kids’ progress and sacrificing achievement points.

Do as you please, but as director of reading of the Chicago Public Schools, I mandated fluency instruction at those grade levels and would do so again if I still had that responsibility.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Of Carts and Horses: Where Fluency Teaching Fits in the Learning to Read

Our preK-5 school has a number of struggling readers, and we were told yesterday that we should focus only on fluency and accuracy, not comprehension or vocabulary. We were also told that we really shouldn't be using our grade level reading materials or complex texts in the classroom until students are fluent and accurate. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what we do when we have large numbers of struggling readers.

I get lots of questions about the sequence of instruction. In this case the issue is fluency versus comprehension; more often it is about phonics, both about the sequence of phonics elements, or like this question, whether decoding proficiency is prerequisite to any other literacy teaching?  

Let’s face it… in life there are times when sequence… definitely put your car in gear before you step on the gas, and my grandchildren love knowing that you have to put your socks on before your shoes if you want things to work out right.

But there are also lots of times when order doesn’t really matter (unless you have obsessive-compulsive disorder, but that’s another topic altogether).

For example, when you’re eating your dinner, no one is likely to care much whether you take a bite of potatoes first or a bite of the green beans. It usually doesn’t matter whether you read the sports section first or the news. And, who cares whether you put on your right or left earring first? It makes no difference so such orderings are left to one’s discretion, comfort, or habit.

So what’s the right answer concerning whether teachers should focus only on “fluency and accuracy” before comprehension and vocabulary?

I think whoever is telling teachers that they need to accomplish oral reading fluency before comprehension is wrong. This notion shows a weak understanding of the oral reading fluency concept and what it contributes to literacy learning.

Fluency is not a single skill as much as an amalgamation of skills. It has three dimensions, not two (it is more than just accuracy and speed, but also includes making the oral reading sound meaningful—expression or prosody). Students both develop decoding and comprehension skills through fluency practice, but they also learn to incorporate those skills within their oral reading (how would one know what to do with the homographs—like minute, digest, resent if comprehension isn’t part of it?).

Of course, if contextual information isn’t entering the system, then students’ fluency development will lag. If it is lagging in the first place (which sounds like the case here), then extra fluency practice is sensible… but if decoding and comprehension instruction is being delayed until fluency is developed, then where do they get the skills and knowledge that is part of what makes fluency go?

If the question had been about whether one should wait to work on fluency and comprehension until decoding was accomplished up to some criterion, I would be giving a similar answer. Decoding is central to beginning reading instruction and I don’t believe that we should stint on it. However, that doesn’t mean teachers shouldn’t, alongside, be emphasizing comprehension (initially listening, eventually reading), oral reading fluency, and vocabulary, too.

And, no, there is no particular sequence of phonics that needs to be taught—though a planful sequence is important (it just doesn’t matter whether you teach a “d” first or an “m”). Similarly, though the line of development in fluency tends to go from accuracy to speed to prosody, you still should emphasize all of them throughout (that, "read this as fast as you can" is foolishness).

I suspect some of the confusion over this comes from a misunderstanding of how the research is done on these literacy components. People get it in their heads that the phonics studies must have only taught phonics. That tends not to be the way these studies are done. In fact, the most typical experimental design has been that the experimental and control subjects both get a fairly comprehensive instructional program, but the experimental group gets an enhanced, special, super-duper version of whatever the component of interest may be (e.g., vocabulary, phonics, fluency, comprehension strategies). That often means that both groups receive some phonics or some fluency work depending on the individual teachers, but that the experimental ones would be more likely to teach these skills more thoroughly or extensively.

We may be thinking that this is the design:
      Experimental Group                                 Control Group                                                 
         Fluency Instruction                                     No Fluency Instruction

But it is more likely to like this:
 Experimental Group                                         Control Group
   Daily XYZ Reading Program Instruction          Daily XYZ Reading Program Instruction
         +Fluency Instruction                                       + Nothing

And what that means is that it wasn’t the additional fluency or phonics that was raising reading achievement, but that additional instruction was effective when added to an ongoing comprehensive program of teaching. 

One of the things that may be making fluency instruction work is that kids are daily learning about letters, sounds, and spelling patterns—and without that information, the fluency teaching on its own might not help as much. Similarly, the work being done to build students’ knowledge of language, content, and comprehension may also be contributing to children’s fluency growth.

As proposed here, cutting kids off from such simultaneous opportunities to learn may both slow their progress in developing fluency and may make fluency more of a parlor trick than a dynamic part of the reading process involving the coordination of high speed decoding with the context of language and ideas.                  

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

What Texts to Use to Teach Fluency?

What are the most appropriate types of texts to use for fluency practice both for young new readers and even older, struggling readers?

With beginning readers what we strive for in “fluency” is different than what we usually think about when speak about fluency (e.g., accuracy, speed, prosody). For beginning readers we are interested in accuracy, but speed is not a goal at all, and if anything we aim at “anti-prosodic reading”. In other words, we want to hear choppy reading.

At first, students are just trying to figure out how reading works… how the words they speak match up with the words that are printed on the page, how the spaces between words work, the differences between syllables and words, etc.

Because of that we initially want to stress things like “finger point reading” in which children try to figure out which words to point to during reading— engaging in choral reading, memorizing texts and trying to “read” them aloud, etc.
At this point, pretty much all texts will be beyond the youngsters’ reading levels, since basically these children aren’t actually reading yet in any conventional sense. It really doesn’t matter which texts are used for this in terms of the language level, readability, or spelling patterns, though it is obviously helpful to have sufficiently large print, decent amounts of spacing between words, sentences, lines, and a scheme that presents entire sentences on single lines initially, but eventually breaks sentences across lines.

Most important at this stage is to have texts that are easy to remember or follow. Texts that are predictable (Brown Bear, Brown Bear), or easy to memorize (Happy Birthday) are particularly useful, because they allow kids to figure out how reading works.

What you are really trying to accomplish with these kinds of text is a kind of choppy reading, in which students “read” each word, word-by-word. 

But once kids can consistently point to the correct words in the manner described above, then fluency morphs into the concept we usually think about, and text choices become even more important. (Some children accomplish this choppy in kindergarten, but it is probably more characteristic of early first-grade year.)

Joe Torgesen has shown that struggling readers (and probably beginning readers at this choppy reading point) tend to learn words from fluency practice. His research finding matches well with the National Reading Panel findings that fluency practice has a big impact on word reading/decoding outcomes. Thus, it would make sense to focus on texts that contain words that are a bit beyond the students’ reading levels, that include both high frequency words that we hope the students will master and spelling patterns that we are trying to teach. 

Since primary grade readers are likely to learn words from fluency practice, then make sure the texts include words that you want students to learn. And, it can be beneficial for those words to be repeated throughout the texts.

Similarly, since these beginners are likely to pick up decoding insights from this oral reading practice, it makes sense to make sure that the spelling patterns and sound-symbol relationships that we want to teach are apparent in these words (being used repeatedly throughout the texts).

Generally, the texts used for fluency should be at levels that we would traditionally label as frustration level. The students will figure out these texts from the feedback and repetition (such repetition isn’t worth the time if the texts are too easy for the students).

I know it is popular to use poetry for fluency practice and that can be fun. However, the point of fluency training is to help students to read the kinds of materials that they will usually be trying to read. Given that, I would occasionally use poetry and songs for fluency work, but more typically I would use prose texts, consistent with what I want them to learn to comprehend.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Round Robin by Any Other Name... Oral Reading for Older Readers

I am seeking your advice based on the email correspondence below that I have had with my principal.  She noted that I was practicing “round robin reading” on a classroom observation.  Upon asking her to remove it (since it was not what I was doing), I realized that she doesn’t entirely understand what that practice looks like.  I gather from her response that she is only interested in the teacher modeling expert reading and students not reading aloud in the classroom at all.  I personally believe that there is a place in the classroom for students to read aloud. 

During the lesson we are speaking of I read aloud an excerpt of Frederick Douglass’s autobiography.  I chunked the reading with questions and discussion in between parts.  I did ask for volunteers to read some parts and several students did volunteer.  I teach gifted language arts.  The majority of my students are proficient in reading and enjoy reading aloud.  I never force them to read aloud though.

If you would please, could you read the correspondence below and let me know your thoughts about students reading aloud in the classroom.

I agree that oral reading has a place, and perhaps an important place in classrooms even at Middle School. 

Oral reading fluency is important because of the role it plays in reading comprehension. With primary grade readers (grade 2), about 70% of the variation in reading comprehension is due to variance in fluency. That is, if we could take away the variation in fluency by bringing those with lower fluency up to the same levels as the most fluent readers, 70% of the differences in reading comprehension would go away. That’s why studies show that teaching oral fluency effectively improves reading comprehension (NICHD, 2002).

However, the importance of fluency diminishes over time. This isn’t because fluency stops mattering, but that more and more students reach the needed levels of fluency. There is a ceiling on fluency—generally someone who can read 125 wcpm is a better reader than someone who reads at 100 wcpm. However, by the time you get to 150-175wcpm it is difficult to do any better than that (we can only speak so fast), and improving on that doesn’t seem to help. What that means is that by 8th grade, oral reading fluency only explains about 25% of the variance in reading comprehension. That is obviously a much lower payoff than for younger kids, and yet, it is 25%—which is a big deal. 

I would definitely have kids practicing oral reading in the middle school grades, at least if they were below the grade levels norms in fluency because I want them to get that comprehension pay off. The problem in your case is that you indicate these to be advanced readers. There is a very real chance that they can already read fluently, and more practice probably would not benefit them (though I would test them rather than asserting that). One reason for engaging good readers in oral reading is to meet the special demands of historical texts like the one you were working with or Shakespeare. The reason for that is that the language patterns can be so complex and archaic that reading the material aloud can aid in figuring it out (I do that myself). But it doesn’t sound like your lesson was very strategic in that regard.

We do know how to teach oral reading fluency successfully. What works? The various meta-analyses show oral reading practice with challenging text (e.g., frustration level), with feedback (e.g., from a teacher, parent, volunteer, other students, computers), and with rereading improves fluency and comprehension. There are now a couple of studies indicating that it is possible to do this with silent reading too, but those focused on computer-delivered instruction that allowed monitored in a way teachers could do on their own. There are lots of effective methods (e.g., paired reading, repeated reading, echo reading, neurological impress, Radio Reading) as well as various programs that work (e.g., Read Naturally). Modeling helps, such as having someone show the student what oral reading should sound like—which wouldn’t make much sense in your case, or, reading a short portion of the text to the student, and then having then trying to read it themselves—which might make sense, though your description makes me doubt it. In some studies, modeling was a planned part of the intervention, but the way I've usually used it is when a student has attempted a read unsuccessfully... I would then read a portion and have have him/her try again. That almost always helps.

Round robin reading refers to one student reading while everyone else listens. Which is what your letter describes. It is not that the oral reading practice round robin provides is so bad, but that there is so little practice in it. Round robin is terribly inefficient. The person who is learning during round robin is the reader—which means 25 other kids are sitting there waiting for their turn. In a middle school in which classes might last only for 45 minutes or 50 minutes, this would be a terrible waste of time, especially if they were already good readers. While I encourage, and even require, oral reading instruction in the middle school, I would never countenance round robin. If you have your students engaged in an activity like paired reading, students would get much more reading time for the same amount of class time. However, if the point was trying to make sense of the text, I would encourage you to work with silent reading—including silent reading of short parts as you describe.

If your students can’t read 8th grade material at 150-175wcpm making it sound like English, then it is legitimate to engage them in oral reading instruction. If one student is reading, and everyone else is listening, then we’re not on the same page. If multiple kids are engaged in the process (in echo reading, everyone reads at the same time; in paired reading, kids take turns). Activities like Reader’s Theatre can be okay, but they should be used no more than occasionally because in some ways it is like round robin—kids wait around too much. 

Instead of you doing the reading as in this lesson, I’d encourage you to have the students try to read it silently. If they have difficulty making sense of it, I would definitely show them how to use oral reading (or whisper reading) as a tool to make sense of those complicated 19th century sentences. Sorry, in this one, I agree with the principal.