These are good points, Janet. Guided repeated oral reading has been
established as an approach to build fluency, and of course, one can read
fluently in silence (as we need to do most of the time!). It's also
helpful as an assessment of fluency, and I think that's what you're
talking about. If you don't hear it you don't know how well the reader
is identifying words and using appropriate phrasing and expression.
Since the three aspects of fluent reading are rate, accuracy, and
prosody (phrasing and expression), you have to have a sample of oral
reading to assess it. In order to assess comprehension you also would
have to ask some questions or ask for a summary, and the informal
reading inventories include that kind of comprehension assessment.

 

However, I agree that reading accurately aloud is not necessarily an
indicator of comprehension. Fluency does not guarantee comprehension. I
usually say it's necessary but not sufficient. And I'm sure, as you've
said, that some people may understand better when they read silently. 

 

At the same time, I think some people find that reading aloud is
helpful. As a high school student I read my textbooks aloud when
studying because I thought I would be more likely to remember what I
read if I both saw the text and heard it. I guess that's what's behind
the multi-sensory approaches to instruction. 

 

Of course, individuals vary greatly, and it seems to me that one would
always want more than one kind of assessment. No single test or task can
provide a valid measure of anything as complex as reading with
understanding.  

 

________________________________

From: familyliteracy-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:familyliteracy-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Janet Isserlis
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:08 AM
To: The Family Literacy Discussion List
Subject: [FamilyLiteracy 963] Re: Comprehension
MonitoringStrategiesDiscussionBegins Today

 

All

The answer to this question might be embedded in some of the earlier
posts, but I'd like to learn more about how it is that reading aloud
("sounding good" - I think someone said) is and isn't useful as an
indicator of reading abilities.

My understanding is that people who can read aloud fairly well are
decent decoders.  They can wrest sound out of symbol.  This, however, is
not the same as making meaning out of what's been read.  (I know that
when I read something aloud, I can't always remember or even make sense
of what I'm reading).

We tend to use reading aloud as a way of 'seeing' what learners can do -
but it seems to me that this gives us a very incomplete picture.

Janet Isserlis 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/familyliteracy/attachments/20080205/700b4498/attachment.html