FFF-luency and Comp-re-hension: “Making Sense” of the Reading Process

Lynn Cohen, Long Island University, C.W. Post; lynn.cohen@liu.edu

Rosanne Kurstedt, Education Consultant; rlerner@fordham.edu

Maria May, Fordham University, maymramapocentral.org

Paper presented at the Association of Childhood Education International Annual Conference March 25, 2005

Abstract:

The National Reading Panel asserts that fluency is essential for comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). This research study examined the relationship between fluency and comprehension by analyzing the oral reading of Roald Dahl’s (1979) short story Posion by three doctoral students. Linguistic and conceptual characteristics of the text were analyzed. Results indicated that fluency and retelling were positively correlated across participants, but there was no correlation within participants. Fluency rates decreased with back and forth dialogue between characters and dialogic clauses were retold more than narrative clauses. Background knowledge seemed to play a role in the retelling performance of participants.

Rationale:

In an era of high-stakes testing and accountability, the words fluency and comprehension are at the forefront of many debates about reading (Adams & Bruck, 1995; Stanovich, 1998, Strauss, 2001). The National Reading Panel asserts that fluency is essential for comprehension (National Institute for Literacy, 2000). This research study examined the relationship between fluency and comprehension by analyzing the oral reading of Roald Dahl’s (1979) short story Posion by three doctoral students.   Fluency rate, accuracy, and retellings were used to examine fluency and comprehension to answer the following research questions:

With these questions in mind, patterns of fluency within and across participants were examined.  For example, were participants more fluent when reading dialogue or narration?  Is each reader’s fluency consistent?  Additionally, retellings were examined to see if any patterns or themes emerged within and across participants.  For example, were the passages that were read fluently, the parts that were retold?  Were there similarities of content across the participants within the retellings? 

Since so much emphasis is being placed on fluency and the connection between fluency and comprehension (Adams & Bruck, 1995; Stanovich, 1998, Strauss, 2001) it is important for educators to understand what impacts fluency.  This deeper understanding will better position educators to help students develop as readers.  This study begins to shed some light on this heated and often complicated issue of fluency and comprehension.

Methodology:

The participants and researchers of this qualitative research study were three female, doctoral candidates in a Language, Literacy, and Learning Program at a Northeastern university in the United States. Each participant collected their own data systematically using miscue analysis procedures outlined by Goodman (1995).  First, directions were provided to read aloud the story, “Poison” (Dahl, 1974). Oral reading data was collected by mechanical means with an audiotape recorder. The passage was written in standard orthography and participants read aloud the entire text in one sitting in a naturalistic style, without stopping. Second, after reading Poison (Dahl, 1974), participants were instructed to write by hand or use a computer to retell information from the text. Participants were told to retell as many details as they could remember, not to summarize, and not to revise the retelling in any way. Third, within a week after the initial oral reading and retelling, participants were trained in marking miscues using Goodman’s (1995) coding system. Each participant reexamined her oral reading by listening to her own tape recording of Poison (Dahl, 1974) and using a pencil and typescript to mark miscues. Last, participants were given a “Participant Interview.” The interviews asked about reading habits, reading background, and about any prior knowledge that may have influenced their understanding of the text.

Data Analysis:

Text was divided into 50 episodes. A coding system was established to further break text into narration and dialogue, as well as identify participant’s fluency and retelling. Analysis involved four components, fluency rates, miscues, retellings, and fluency and retelling.

            Fluency Rates – We divided the text into episodes, defined as a segment of text that describes a chain of events (Harris & Hodges, 1995).  A word count was obtained for each episode, then mean speed of words per second were computed within each episode and entire text. Participant miscue and accuracy rates were examined.

            Miscues – Participant miscues were examined in narration and dialogue. We used Goodman & Marek’s (1996) definition of miscues to guide our analysis. Miscues and fluency were examined across participants to find patterns relating to text structure, fluency, and miscues.

            Retellings – A rating scale was used to rate episodes retold. One point was given if a complete idea was retold, a half point for an incomplete idea or idea out of sequence.

Further analysis involved an examination of percent of clauses retold and percent of narrative to dialogic clauses retold within each participant’s retelling.

            Fluency and Retelling – Mean fluency rates and episodes retold were compared. Individual participant profiles were analyzed to compare fluency rate, miscues, and retelling within, as well as across participants.

Findings:

Upon examination of the data, we uncovered a number of patterns, both within and across participants that related to the three research questions. Results for each question are summarized below.

1. Fluency within the sentence structures of narration and dialogue

             dialogue between characters.

            with difficult or unusual words.

·        Individual fluency rates supported the information provided on the informant interviews.

2. Retellings

3. Fluency & Retelling Connection

Implications:

This study suggests two important implications for future research, classroom practice, and educational policy. The first discovery is how background knowledge impacts comprehension and retelling. One might infer that background knowledge and comprehension, as measured by retellings are related (Kucer, 2001; Van Den Broek & Kramer, 2000).  If so, teachers need to provide texts that are of interest to students; ones in which students can use background knowledge to connect with, make sense of, and enjoy reading or provide pre-reading experiences to build background knowledge.

The second interesting finding was that when there was a lot of dialogue the readers tended to slow their reading down thus impacting their fluency.  But although participants were less fluent when reading the dialogue, they were able to retell more dialogic passages than narrative. Teachers working with students who have difficulty with recall might provide students with texts that incorporate more dialogue.  This will give students opportunities to develop strategies and confidence with, what we found, was the more likely structure to be remembered.  Teachers also could have students read passages written with a heavy emphasis on the different structures of dialogue and narration.  Examining students’ retellings of these different passages might enable teachers and students to glean insights into the retelling process.  Subsequently, this will facilitate students’ ability to make sense of and retell different types of text. 

References

Adams, M. & Brock, M. (1995). Resolving the ‘great debate.’ American Educator.

            Summer, 7-20.

Dahl, R. (1974). “Poison”. In R.Dahl, The Roald Dahl Omnibus (pp. 128-144).

            New York, New York: Barnes & Noble.

Goodman, Y. (1995). Miscue analysis for classroom teachers: Some history and some

            procedures.  Primary Voices K-6, 3, Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2-9.

Kucer, S. (2001). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and

writing in school settings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Marek, A. & Goodman, Y. (1996). Understanding the reading process. In Y. Goodman &

            A  Marek, Retrospective miscue analysis (pp.21-38). Katonah, NY: Owens.

Report of the National Reading Panel. (2000). Washington, D. C.: National Institute of

Health and Human Services.

Stanovich, K. (1998). Twenty-five years of research on the reading process: The grand

            synthesis and what it means for our field. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriquez-Brown

            (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.44-58).

            Chicago: NRC.

Strauss, S. (2003). An open letter to Reid Lyon. Educational Researcher

June/July, 26-33.

Van Den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. (2000) “The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading”. In Taylor, B., Graves, M., & Van Den Broek (Eds.) Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.