While reading the article on One-Minute Fluency, my mind was trying to take in all of the information the author gives about fluency. Deeney brings to our attention that until we get a universal definition for fluency we are always going to have problems with the assessment for it. The One-Minute Fluency test is good in some cases, like in the cases for the children who are average or good readers. I do not think that it is the most accurate measure of fluency when it comes to struggling readers. Deeney talks about how it does not measure some children accurately, for instance: the child that will do okay for the one minute of reading, but then if he continues to read his accuracy and the amount of missed words will decline. On the other hand, you might have a child who does not do well in that one minute, but given more time he or she will progress as he/she continues. The One-Minute Fluency measure does not help this children, it just puts them in a certain category and sometimes the wrong category at that. I found this article to be very informative, but it really points out the flaws of the fluency measures now. We need to think of ways to better test for fluency and also come up with a definition that we might all go by.
Can you think of any other ways to test for fluency?
**This article also talked about how rereading is a great way to increase fluency. Here is a video I found that tests that theory.
I agree with you that one minute assessments aren't the best way to gain the most information on the fluency of students. I think it's important for all of us as future educators to store this fact in the back of our minds and remember that even if one minute assessments are used in our schools, it might be beneficial for us and the student to do other kinds of assessments one on one - especially to gauge each students reading endurance.
ReplyDelete