Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Brierley
    Hi Juan and all, The problem with authentic is that it implies that other texts are not authentic. So, if we use graded readers, we are saying to our
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Juan and all,

      The problem with "authentic" is that it implies that other texts are not authentic.

      So, if we use graded readers, we are saying to our students:

      "Here, read this, it's not authentic"!

      This is quite derogatory towards graded readers. This seems to be the position of many teachers who do not support ER. It may also be Juan's position!

      In fact, the term authentic is very slippery.

      If "authentic" means written for any native speaker, then... where is it? The closest to that would be, the Bible, Harry Potter, or perhaps street signs....

      Most native speaker-oriented texts are written for specific and quite narrow audiences. Several great pieces of writing (such as Alice in Wonderland) are written to a single person.

      If "authentic" means that the book is written for a specific audience, then graded readers are very much authentic since they are written for people learning English. Demographically this is a bigger group than the native speakers, so you could even argue graded readers are more authentic!

      The native language of the authors is simply not an issue: Joseph Conrad didn't speak English fluently till his twenties, and is considered one of the greats of English literature.

      The term "native speaker" is also a little slippery, and includes several issues but "native speaker texts" as in texts for native speakers does not seem to be problematic. There are native speakers of English. Books are written with them as the reading target. There are many people in the gray area between native speaker and non-native speaker, but this does not mean we should stop using the word. 

      "non-graded" is also clear, but a little clumsy!  

      I'd follow Oscar Wilde's advice, stylenot sincerity is the vital thing, and use "native speaker" texts. 

      Language should be beautiful.


      Mark


      On 6 April 2013 00:51, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:
       

      Hi Everyone,
      I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
      I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
      Best Regards,
      Juan        

      From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
      To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
      Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
       
      Hi Mike,

      How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

      I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

      Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

      All the best,
      Aaron.

      On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
       
      Dear All,

      For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

      Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

      However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

      Thank you for your input.

      Mike Misner

      --
      Aaron D. Jolly.

      Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
      (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

      *Director of Content Development,
      Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

      *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
       Email: aaron.jolly@...

      *Teacher Trainer. 
       
      *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
       -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
       -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
       Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 




      --

      Mark Brierley
      School of General Education
      Shinshu University
      Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
      +81 263 37-2923
      mobile 090 4464 6391

      --

      My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
      http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/
    • Rob Waring
      Hi How about native texts - i.e texts not written for language learners? Maybe this issue of authentic text v s graded texts is actually a red herring as it
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 6, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi

        How about 'native texts' - i.e texts not written for language learners?

        Maybe this issue of authentic text v's graded texts is actually a red herring as it conflates two aspects of reading extensively and defines ER as what you read - i.e. by the type of text you read. (If you read X you are doing Y, if you read P you are doing S). I've been thinking about the definition of ER recently. This is where I am today. 

        I feel there are two aspects to the definition of ER.

        a) ER as a noun. This refers to the pedagogy of ER - the choice of materials, the amount of reading, what a library should look like, assessment etc.

        b) ER as a verb. When people are reading extensively, they read in a certain way - i.e. the focus is on the process of reading. Carver calls is rauding - the process of reading fast, fluently with high comprehension. My preferred term is freading  (fluent-reading, or fast-reading) as it's easier to say ;).  If students are not freading, then they are reading intensively - i.e. with a relatively high focus on the linguistic aspects of the text. This is not an all or nothing issue but a relative one. 

        Thus one can be reading intensively and at the same time understanding a lot (careful reading), and one can be reading quickly and understand little detail (skimming), and a nice balance between them is freading. But you are not stuck in a certain mode because of the text in front of you. You can move up and down the scale (It's probably 2 scales actually) from careful reading to skimming second by second as you react to a text - i.e you can be freading for a few lines and then you have to process one part of the text more intensively for a few seconds and then you go back to freading.

        Under this definition, the amount of text is irrelevant to the notion of freading. Of course more is better but volume doesn't change the process of reading as volume is a pedagogical issue.

        So if students are reading material they cannot fread, then they aren't reading extensively under the above definition. This is an issue with using native-level texts. They can only fread them when they process in a certain way. This means it's perfectly possible to fread a native text if it contains language and ideas that allows you to do so. For example this happens when an advanced level learner reads a text written for native children - an Oxford Reading Tree book that has very simple language - the advanced learner is freading a native text. But if you give intermediates Time magazine it's unlikely they will be freading.

        Your thoughts are welcome. I'm still not 100% comfortable with the definitions, so all input is welcome from all the smart people out there.

        Rob Waring
        waring.rob@...
        www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


        On Apr 6, 2013, at 12:51 AM, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:

         

        Hi Everyone,
        I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
        I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
        Best Regards,
        Juan        

        From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
        To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
        Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
         
        Hi Mike,

        How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

        I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

        Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

        All the best,
        Aaron.

        On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
         
        Dear All,

        For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

        Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

        However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

        Thank you for your input.

        Mike Misner

        --
        Aaron D. Jolly.

        Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
        (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

        *Director of Content Development,
        Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

        *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
         Email: aaron.jolly@...

        *Teacher Trainer. 
         
        *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
         -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
         -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
         Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 



      • Glen Hill
        Just my two cents... Graded readers use a limited vocabulary compared to non-graded material, so in that sense they are indeed not authentic. That is, the
        Message 3 of 26 , Apr 6, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Just my two cents...

          Graded readers use a limited vocabulary compared to non-graded material, so in that sense they are indeed not authentic. That is, the author is limited to a certain word list (and grammar?) whether he likes it or not.

          Glenski


          On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
           

          Hi Juan and all,

          The problem with "authentic" is that it implies that other texts are not authentic.

          So, if we use graded readers, we are saying to our students:

          "Here, read this, it's not authentic"!

          This is quite derogatory towards graded readers. This seems to be the position of many teachers who do not support ER. It may also be Juan's position!

          In fact, the term authentic is very slippery.

          If "authentic" means written for any native speaker, then... where is it? The closest to that would be, the Bible, Harry Potter, or perhaps street signs....

          Most native speaker-oriented texts are written for specific and quite narrow audiences. Several great pieces of writing (such as Alice in Wonderland) are written to a single person.

          If "authentic" means that the book is written for a specific audience, then graded readers are very much authentic since they are written for people learning English. Demographically this is a bigger group than the native speakers, so you could even argue graded readers are more authentic!

          The native language of the authors is simply not an issue: Joseph Conrad didn't speak English fluently till his twenties, and is considered one of the greats of English literature.

          The term "native speaker" is also a little slippery, and includes several issues but "native speaker texts" as in texts for native speakers does not seem to be problematic. There are native speakers of English. Books are written with them as the reading target. There are many people in the gray area between native speaker and non-native speaker, but this does not mean we should stop using the word. 

          "non-graded" is also clear, but a little clumsy!  

          I'd follow Oscar Wilde's advice, stylenot sincerity is the vital thing, and use "native speaker" texts. 

          Language should be beautiful.


          Mark


          On 6 April 2013 00:51, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:
           

          Hi Everyone,
          I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
          I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
          Best Regards,
          Juan        

          From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
          To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
          Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
           
          Hi Mike,

          How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

          I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

          Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

          All the best,
          Aaron.

          On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
           
          Dear All,

          For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

          Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

          However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

          Thank you for your input.

          Mike Misner

          --
          Aaron D. Jolly.

          Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
          (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

          *Director of Content Development,
          Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

          *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
           Email: aaron.jolly@...

          *Teacher Trainer. 
           
          *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
           -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
           -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
           Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 




          --

          Mark Brierley
          School of General Education
          Shinshu University
          Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
          +81 263 37-2923
          mobile 090 4464 6391

          --

          My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
          http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/


        • Glen Hill
          Hi, Rob, Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so. Glenski
          Message 4 of 26 , Apr 6, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, Rob,
            Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
            Glenski


            On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
             

            Hi


            How about 'native texts' - i.e texts not written for language learners?

            Maybe this issue of authentic text v's graded texts is actually a red herring as it conflates two aspects of reading extensively and defines ER as what you read - i.e. by the type of text you read. (If you read X you are doing Y, if you read P you are doing S). I've been thinking about the definition of ER recently. This is where I am today. 

            I feel there are two aspects to the definition of ER.

            a) ER as a noun. This refers to the pedagogy of ER - the choice of materials, the amount of reading, what a library should look like, assessment etc.

            b) ER as a verb. When people are reading extensively, they read in a certain way - i.e. the focus is on the process of reading. Carver calls is rauding - the process of reading fast, fluently with high comprehension. My preferred term is freading  (fluent-reading, or fast-reading) as it's easier to say ;).  If students are not freading, then they are reading intensively - i.e. with a relatively high focus on the linguistic aspects of the text. This is not an all or nothing issue but a relative one. 

            Thus one can be reading intensively and at the same time understanding a lot (careful reading), and one can be reading quickly and understand little detail (skimming), and a nice balance between them is freading. But you are not stuck in a certain mode because of the text in front of you. You can move up and down the scale (It's probably 2 scales actually) from careful reading to skimming second by second as you react to a text - i.e you can be freading for a few lines and then you have to process one part of the text more intensively for a few seconds and then you go back to freading.

            Under this definition, the amount of text is irrelevant to the notion of freading. Of course more is better but volume doesn't change the process of reading as volume is a pedagogical issue.

            So if students are reading material they cannot fread, then they aren't reading extensively under the above definition. This is an issue with using native-level texts. They can only fread them when they process in a certain way. This means it's perfectly possible to fread a native text if it contains language and ideas that allows you to do so. For example this happens when an advanced level learner reads a text written for native children - an Oxford Reading Tree book that has very simple language - the advanced learner is freading a native text. But if you give intermediates Time magazine it's unlikely they will be freading.

            Your thoughts are welcome. I'm still not 100% comfortable with the definitions, so all input is welcome from all the smart people out there.

            Rob Waring
            waring.rob@...
            www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


            On Apr 6, 2013, at 12:51 AM, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:

             

            Hi Everyone,
            I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
            I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
            Best Regards,
            Juan        

            From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
            To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
            Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
             
            Hi Mike,

            How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

            I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

            Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

            All the best,
            Aaron.

            On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
             
            Dear All,

            For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

            Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

            However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

            Thank you for your input.

            Mike Misner

            --
            Aaron D. Jolly.

            Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
            (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

            *Director of Content Development,
            Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

            *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
             Email: aaron.jolly@...

            *Teacher Trainer. 
             
            *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
             -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
             -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
             Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 




          • Richard
            Hi Glenski, If the learner is not reading quickly enough, he/she is not reading fluently. When I heard Paul Nation speak yesterday he addressed this issue and
            Message 5 of 26 , Apr 6, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Glenski,

              If the learner is not reading quickly enough, he/she is not reading fluently. When I heard Paul Nation speak yesterday he addressed this issue and he felt that learners should read at a level with virtually no new vocabulary to increase fluency (nearly equal to speed here) and with no more than 4 new words on a page (average) for helping in acquiring new vocabulary and practice at using various reading strategies. At least that was my understanding of his remarks.

              Richard

              --- In ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi, Rob,
              > Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER?
              > I would hesitate to do so.
              > Glenski
              >
              >
              > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
              >
              > > **
              > >
              > >
              > > Hi
              > >
              > > How about 'native texts' - i.e texts not written for language learners?
              > >
              > > Maybe this issue of authentic text v's graded texts is actually a red
              > > herring as it conflates two aspects of reading extensively and defines ER
              > > as what you read - i.e. by the type of text you read. (If you read X you
              > > are doing Y, if you read P you are doing S). I've been thinking about the
              > > definition of ER recently. This is where I am today.
              > >
              > > I feel there are two aspects to the definition of ER.
              > >
              > > a) *ER as a noun*. This refers to the pedagogy of ER - the choice of
              > > materials, the amount of reading, what a library should look like,
              > > assessment etc.
              > >
              > > b) *ER as a verb*. When people are reading extensively, they read in a
              > > certain way - i.e. the focus is on the *process* of reading. Carver calls
              > > is *rauding* - the process of reading fast, fluently with high
              > > comprehension. My preferred term is *freading *(*fl*uent-*reading*, or *f
              > > *ast-*reading)* as it's easier to say ;). If students are not *freading*,
              > > then they are reading intensively - i.e. with a relatively high focus on
              > > the linguistic aspects of the text. This is not an all or nothing issue but
              > > a relative one.
              > >
              > > Thus one can be reading intensively and at the same time understanding a
              > > lot (careful reading), and one can be reading quickly and understand little
              > > detail (skimming), and a nice balance between them is *freading*. But you
              > > are not stuck in a certain mode because of the text in front of you. You
              > > can move up and down the scale (It's probably 2 scales actually) from
              > > careful reading to skimming second by second as you react to a text - i.e
              > > you can be *freading* for a few lines and then you have to process one
              > > part of the text more intensively for a few seconds and then you go back to
              > > *freading*.
              > >
              > > Under this definition, the amount of text is irrelevant to the notion of *
              > > freading*. Of course more is better but volume doesn't change the process
              > > of reading as volume is a pedagogical issue.
              > >
              > > So if students are reading material they cannot *fread,* then they aren't
              > > reading extensively under the above definition. This is an issue with using
              > > native-level texts. They can only *fread* them when they process in a
              > > certain way. This means it's perfectly possible to fread a native text if
              > > it contains language and ideas that allows you to do so. For example this
              > > happens when an advanced level learner reads a text written for native
              > > children - an Oxford Reading Tree book that has very simple language - the
              > > advanced learner is freading a native text. But if you give intermediates
              > > Time magazine it's unlikely they will be freading.
              > >
              > > Your thoughts are welcome. I'm still not 100% comfortable with the
              > > definitions, so all input is welcome from all the smart people out there.
              > >
              > > Rob Waring
              > > waring.rob@...
              > > www.ER-Central.com Check it out!
              > >
              > >
              > > On Apr 6, 2013, at 12:51 AM, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...>
              > > wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Hi Everyone,
              > > I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an
              > > English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways
              > > with the notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native
              > > speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of
              > > any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that
              > > satisfies i+1. As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues
              > > clouded the topic. First, enormous amounts of good readings of all genres
              > > were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of
              > > native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be
              > > taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of
              > > the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded
              > > books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in
              > > Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars
              > > (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the
              > > alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a
              > > reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this
              > > "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or
              > > non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the
              > > text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different
              > > levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very
              > > "simple" and short texts.
              > > I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native
              > > speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER
              > > program for american students I am writing the texts (and
              > > selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I
              > > can't use their texts in my clasess) but this task is tremendously
              > > challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and
              > > not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact
              > > with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my
              > > "nativeness". Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in
              > > contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety. My point, ER should
              > > be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with
              > > authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable
              > > to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish,
              > > English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth).
              > > Best Regards,
              > > Juan
              > >
              > > *From:* Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
              > > *To:* ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
              > > *Sent:* Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
              > > *Subject:* Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative
              > > to Native Speaker Text?
              > > **
              > >
              > > Hi Mike,
              > >
              > > How about... *"Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?*
              > >
              > > I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER
              > > guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.
              > >
              > > Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research
              > > at U. Hawaii.
              > >
              > > All the best,
              > > Aaron.
              > >
              > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:**
              > >
              > > **
              > >
              > > Dear All,
              > >
              > > For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the
              > > case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an
              > > international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use
              > > English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how
              > > I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of
              > > English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native
              > > Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I
              > > believe that you understand my point.
              > >
              > > Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several
              > > decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature
              > > form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner
              > > Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered
              > > synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.
              > >
              > > However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack
              > > as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a
              > > phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and
              > > Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?
              > >
              > > Thank you for your input.
              > >
              > > Mike Misner
              > >
              > > ******-- **
              > > Aaron D. Jolly.
              > >
              > > Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354
              > > (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)
              > >
              > > *Director of Content Development,
              > > Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.
              > > http://www.visang.com/
              > >
              > > *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
              > > Web: http://www.englishcentral.com/
              > > Email: *aaron.jolly@...*
              > >
              > > *Teacher Trainer.
              > > Web: http://thejollyprofessor.blogspot.com/
              > >
              > > *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
              > > -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
              > > -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
              > > Web: http://www.kotesol.org/
              > >
              > > ****
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
            • Rob Waring
              Glen What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER? In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one
              Message 6 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Glen
                What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                Rob Waring
                waring.rob@...
                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                 

                Hi, Rob,
                Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                Glenski


                On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                 

                Hi


                How about 'native texts' - i.e texts not written for language learners?

                Maybe this issue of authentic text v's graded texts is actually a red herring as it conflates two aspects of reading extensively and defines ER as what you read - i.e. by the type of text you read. (If you read X you are doing Y, if you read P you are doing S). I've been thinking about the definition of ER recently. This is where I am today. 

                I feel there are two aspects to the definition of ER.

                a) ER as a noun. This refers to the pedagogy of ER - the choice of materials, the amount of reading, what a library should look like, assessment etc.

                b) ER as a verb. When people are reading extensively, they read in a certain way - i.e. the focus is on the process of reading. Carver calls is rauding - the process of reading fast, fluently with high comprehension. My preferred term is freading  (fluent-reading, or fast-reading) as it's easier to say ;).  If students are not freading, then they are reading intensively - i.e. with a relatively high focus on the linguistic aspects of the text. This is not an all or nothing issue but a relative one. 

                Thus one can be reading intensively and at the same time understanding a lot (careful reading), and one can be reading quickly and understand little detail (skimming), and a nice balance between them is freading. But you are not stuck in a certain mode because of the text in front of you. You can move up and down the scale (It's probably 2 scales actually) from careful reading to skimming second by second as you react to a text - i.e you can be freading for a few lines and then you have to process one part of the text more intensively for a few seconds and then you go back to freading.

                Under this definition, the amount of text is irrelevant to the notion of freading. Of course more is better but volume doesn't change the process of reading as volume is a pedagogical issue.

                So if students are reading material they cannot fread, then they aren't reading extensively under the above definition. This is an issue with using native-level texts. They can only fread them when they process in a certain way. This means it's perfectly possible to fread a native text if it contains language and ideas that allows you to do so. For example this happens when an advanced level learner reads a text written for native children - an Oxford Reading Tree book that has very simple language - the advanced learner is freading a native text. But if you give intermediates Time magazine it's unlikely they will be freading.

                Your thoughts are welcome. I'm still not 100% comfortable with the definitions, so all input is welcome from all the smart people out there.

                Rob Waring
                waring.rob@...
                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                On Apr 6, 2013, at 12:51 AM, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:

                 

                Hi Everyone,
                I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
                I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
                Best Regards,
                Juan        

                From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
                To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
                Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
                 
                Hi Mike,

                How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

                I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

                Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

                All the best,
                Aaron.

                On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
                 
                Dear All,

                For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

                Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

                However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

                Thank you for your input.

                Mike Misner

                --
                Aaron D. Jolly.

                Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
                (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

                *Director of Content Development,
                Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

                *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
                 Email: aaron.jolly@...

                *Teacher Trainer. 
                 
                *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
                 -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
                 -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
                 Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 







              • Mark Brierley
                Here s another perspective on reading speed and fluency. The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar
                Message 7 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                  The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                  As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                  In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                  Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:

                  1 word: 30 wpm

                  2 words: 60 wpm

                  3 words: 90 wpm

                  4 words: 120 wpm

                  5 words: 150 wpm

                  6 words: 180 wpm

                  7 words: 210 wpm

                  Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                  Mark


                  Mark Brierley
                  School of General Education
                  Shinshu University
                  Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                  +81 263 37-2923
                  mobile 090 4464 6391

                  --

                  My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                  http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                  On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                   

                  Glen

                  What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                  Rob Waring
                  waring.rob@...
                  www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                  On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                   

                  Hi, Rob,
                  Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                  Glenski

                • Mark Brierley
                  Hi Glen, Children s literature also uses a limited vocabulary. So that s not authentic? Academic writing uses a limited vocabulary. So that s not authentic?
                  Message 8 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Hi Glen, 

                    Children's literature also uses a limited vocabulary.

                    So that's not authentic?


                    Academic writing uses a limited vocabulary. 

                    So that's not authentic?


                    Train timetables use limited vocabulary, so they're not authentic? 


                    (Actually coming from the UK I may be on a sticky wicket here!) 


                    Mark



                    Mark Brierley
                    School of General Education
                    Shinshu University
                    Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                    +81 263 37-2923
                    mobile 090 4464 6391

                    --

                    My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                    http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                    On Apr 7, 2013 2:52 PM, "Glen Hill" <glenahill@...> wrote:
                     

                    Just my two cents...

                    Graded readers use a limited vocabulary compared to non-graded material, so in that sense they are indeed not authentic. That is, the author is limited to a certain word list (and grammar?) whether he likes it or not.

                    Glenski


                    On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                     

                    Hi Juan and all,

                    The problem with "authentic" is that it implies that other texts are not authentic.

                    So, if we use graded readers, we are saying to our students:

                    "Here, read this, it's not authentic"!

                    This is quite derogatory towards graded readers. This seems to be the position of many teachers who do not support ER. It may also be Juan's position!

                    In fact, the term authentic is very slippery.

                    If "authentic" means written for any native speaker, then... where is it? The closest to that would be, the Bible, Harry Potter, or perhaps street signs....

                    Most native speaker-oriented texts are written for specific and quite narrow audiences. Several great pieces of writing (such as Alice in Wonderland) are written to a single person.

                    If "authentic" means that the book is written for a specific audience, then graded readers are very much authentic since they are written for people learning English. Demographically this is a bigger group than the native speakers, so you could even argue graded readers are more authentic!

                    The native language of the authors is simply not an issue: Joseph Conrad didn't speak English fluently till his twenties, and is considered one of the greats of English literature.

                    The term "native speaker" is also a little slippery, and includes several issues but "native speaker texts" as in texts for native speakers does not seem to be problematic. There are native speakers of English. Books are written with them as the reading target. There are many people in the gray area between native speaker and non-native speaker, but this does not mean we should stop using the word. 

                    "non-graded" is also clear, but a little clumsy!  

                    I'd follow Oscar Wilde's advice, stylenot sincerity is the vital thing, and use "native speaker" texts. 

                    Language should be beautiful.


                    Mark


                    On 6 April 2013 00:51, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:
                     

                    Hi Everyone,
                    I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
                    I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
                    Best Regards,
                    Juan        

                    From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
                    To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
                    Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
                     
                    Hi Mike,

                    How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

                    I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

                    Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

                    All the best,
                    Aaron.

                    On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
                     
                    Dear All,

                    For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

                    Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

                    However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

                    Thank you for your input.

                    Mike Misner

                    --
                    Aaron D. Jolly.

                    Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
                    (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

                    *Director of Content Development,
                    Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

                    *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
                     Email: aaron.jolly@...

                    *Teacher Trainer. 
                     
                    *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
                     -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
                     -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
                     Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 




                    --

                    Mark Brierley
                    School of General Education
                    Shinshu University
                    Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                    +81 263 37-2923
                    mobile 090 4464 6391

                    --

                    My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                    http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/


                  • Mark Brierley
                    Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of
                    Message 9 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                      So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                      I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                      Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                      Mark
                       


                      On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                      Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                      The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                      As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                      In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                      Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:

                      1 word: 30 wpm

                      2 words: 60 wpm

                      3 words: 90 wpm

                      4 words: 120 wpm

                      5 words: 150 wpm

                      6 words: 180 wpm

                      7 words: 210 wpm

                      Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                      Mark


                      Mark Brierley
                      School of General Education
                      Shinshu University
                      Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                      +81 263 37-2923
                      mobile 090 4464 6391

                      --

                      My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                      http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                      On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                       

                      Glen

                      What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                      Rob Waring
                      waring.rob@...
                      www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                      On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                       

                      Hi, Rob,
                      Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                      Glenski




                      --

                      Mark Brierley
                      School of General Education
                      Shinshu University
                      Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                      +81 263 37-2923
                      mobile 090 4464 6391

                      --

                      My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                      http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/
                    • Rob Waring
                      Note sure they have Mark. Someone need a Ph.D? Rob Waring waring.rob@gmail.com www.ER-Central.com Check it out!
                      Message 10 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?

                        Rob Waring
                        waring.rob@...
                        www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                        On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                         

                        Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                        So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                        I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                        Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                        Mark
                         


                        On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                        Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                        The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                        As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                        In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                        Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                        1 word: 30 wpm

                        2 words: 60 wpm

                        3 words: 90 wpm

                        4 words: 120 wpm

                        5 words: 150 wpm

                        6 words: 180 wpm

                        7 words: 210 wpm


                        Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                        Mark


                        Mark Brierley
                        School of General Education
                        Shinshu University
                        Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                        +81 263 37-2923
                        mobile 090 4464 6391

                        --

                        My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                        http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                        On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                         

                        Glen

                        What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                        Rob Waring
                        waring.rob@...
                        www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                        On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                         

                        Hi, Rob,
                        Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                        Glenski




                        --

                        Mark Brierley
                        School of General Education
                        Shinshu University
                        Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                        +81 263 37-2923
                        mobile 090 4464 6391

                        --

                        My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                        http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/


                      • Glen Hill
                        Mark, Good points, although I would argue against the use of limited for academic writing and train schedules. They have particularly special terminology, of
                        Message 11 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mark,
                          Good points, although I would argue against the use of "limited" for academic writing and train schedules. They have particularly special terminology, of course, but the other words (more general service in use) that are employed are not really restricted (limited) to a certain group, are they?

                          The wicket certainly does get sticky when we all try to define things, doesn't it!?

                          As for children's literature, for native speakers of any language, yes, I agree that there is probably a limited number of words used in the writing. I wonder how authors and publishers of material that is non-graded (like graded readers) go about figuring what words to use. (And, Dr. Seuss is a poor example for children's literature!)

                          The term "graded" or "leveled" actually sounds pretty good to me!


                          On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                           

                          Hi Glen, 

                          Children's literature also uses a limited vocabulary.

                          So that's not authentic?


                          Academic writing uses a limited vocabulary. 

                          So that's not authentic?


                          Train timetables use limited vocabulary, so they're not authentic? 


                          (Actually coming from the UK I may be on a sticky wicket here!) 


                          Mark



                          Mark Brierley
                          School of General Education
                          Shinshu University
                          Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                          +81 263 37-2923
                          mobile 090 4464 6391

                          --

                          My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                          http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                          On Apr 7, 2013 2:52 PM, "Glen Hill" <glenahill@...> wrote:
                           

                          Just my two cents...

                          Graded readers use a limited vocabulary compared to non-graded material, so in that sense they are indeed not authentic. That is, the author is limited to a certain word list (and grammar?) whether he likes it or not.

                          Glenski


                          On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                           

                          Hi Juan and all,

                          The problem with "authentic" is that it implies that other texts are not authentic.

                          So, if we use graded readers, we are saying to our students:

                          "Here, read this, it's not authentic"!

                          This is quite derogatory towards graded readers. This seems to be the position of many teachers who do not support ER. It may also be Juan's position!

                          In fact, the term authentic is very slippery.

                          If "authentic" means written for any native speaker, then... where is it? The closest to that would be, the Bible, Harry Potter, or perhaps street signs....

                          Most native speaker-oriented texts are written for specific and quite narrow audiences. Several great pieces of writing (such as Alice in Wonderland) are written to a single person.

                          If "authentic" means that the book is written for a specific audience, then graded readers are very much authentic since they are written for people learning English. Demographically this is a bigger group than the native speakers, so you could even argue graded readers are more authentic!

                          The native language of the authors is simply not an issue: Joseph Conrad didn't speak English fluently till his twenties, and is considered one of the greats of English literature.

                          The term "native speaker" is also a little slippery, and includes several issues but "native speaker texts" as in texts for native speakers does not seem to be problematic. There are native speakers of English. Books are written with them as the reading target. There are many people in the gray area between native speaker and non-native speaker, but this does not mean we should stop using the word. 

                          "non-graded" is also clear, but a little clumsy!  

                          I'd follow Oscar Wilde's advice, stylenot sincerity is the vital thing, and use "native speaker" texts. 

                          Language should be beautiful.


                          Mark


                          On 6 April 2013 00:51, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:
                           

                          Hi Everyone,
                          I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
                          I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
                          Best Regards,
                          Juan        

                          From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
                          To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
                          Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
                           
                          Hi Mike,

                          How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

                          I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

                          Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

                          All the best,
                          Aaron.

                          On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
                           
                          Dear All,

                          For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

                          Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

                          However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

                          Thank you for your input.

                          Mike Misner

                          --
                          Aaron D. Jolly.

                          Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
                          (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

                          *Director of Content Development,
                          Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

                          *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
                           Email: aaron.jolly@...

                          *Teacher Trainer. 
                           
                          *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
                           -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
                           -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
                           Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 




                          --

                          Mark Brierley
                          School of General Education
                          Shinshu University
                          Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                          +81 263 37-2923
                          mobile 090 4464 6391

                          --

                          My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                          http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/



                        • Mark Brierley
                          Hi Glen, I think anyone who teaches academic writing would agree that the words used are restricted. For example we conducted a survey would be fine, while
                          Message 12 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Glen,

                            I think anyone who teaches academic writing would agree that the words used are restricted. For example "we conducted a survey" would be fine, while "we did a survey" less desirable and "we inflicted a survey on our students" inappropriate. On a timetable the words "departs" and "arrives" are used, not "sets off" and "gets there, if you're lucky". In fiction, in both cases, it would probably be the opposite. 

                            Dr Zeuss obviously makes a tough case for "authentic", but I would stand alongside a lot of other children (old and young) that it is great reading. It is also precisely the kind of literature that can and is used in extensive reading, where we need to define the difference between graded and non-graded. I guess science fiction tests the word "authentic" too. 

                            Graded or leveled sound fine, but Mike's question is what to call literature that is not graded or leveled. I don't think it is "authentic", because that immediately puts us into value-assumptions about writing that excludes anything written for language learners, implying that either their reading is not authentic, or that they should be reading texts much too difficult for them that will likely result in pain, boredom and failure. 

                            Mark



                            On 8 April 2013 11:03, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:
                             

                            Mark,
                            Good points, although I would argue against the use of "limited" for academic writing and train schedules. They have particularly special terminology, of course, but the other words (more general service in use) that are employed are not really restricted (limited) to a certain group, are they?

                            The wicket certainly does get sticky when we all try to define things, doesn't it!?

                            As for children's literature, for native speakers of any language, yes, I agree that there is probably a limited number of words used in the writing. I wonder how authors and publishers of material that is non-graded (like graded readers) go about figuring what words to use. (And, Dr. Seuss is a poor example for children's literature!)

                            The term "graded" or "leveled" actually sounds pretty good to me!


                            On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                             

                            Hi Glen, 

                            Children's literature also uses a limited vocabulary.

                            So that's not authentic?


                            Academic writing uses a limited vocabulary. 

                            So that's not authentic?


                            Train timetables use limited vocabulary, so they're not authentic? 


                            (Actually coming from the UK I may be on a sticky wicket here!) 


                            Mark



                            Mark Brierley
                            School of General Education
                            Shinshu University
                            Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                            +81 263 37-2923
                            mobile 090 4464 6391

                            --

                            My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                            http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                            On Apr 7, 2013 2:52 PM, "Glen Hill" <glenahill@...> wrote:
                             

                            Just my two cents...

                            Graded readers use a limited vocabulary compared to non-graded material, so in that sense they are indeed not authentic. That is, the author is limited to a certain word list (and grammar?) whether he likes it or not.

                            Glenski


                            On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                             

                            Hi Juan and all,

                            The problem with "authentic" is that it implies that other texts are not authentic.

                            So, if we use graded readers, we are saying to our students:

                            "Here, read this, it's not authentic"!

                            This is quite derogatory towards graded readers. This seems to be the position of many teachers who do not support ER. It may also be Juan's position!

                            In fact, the term authentic is very slippery.

                            If "authentic" means written for any native speaker, then... where is it? The closest to that would be, the Bible, Harry Potter, or perhaps street signs....

                            Most native speaker-oriented texts are written for specific and quite narrow audiences. Several great pieces of writing (such as Alice in Wonderland) are written to a single person.

                            If "authentic" means that the book is written for a specific audience, then graded readers are very much authentic since they are written for people learning English. Demographically this is a bigger group than the native speakers, so you could even argue graded readers are more authentic!

                            The native language of the authors is simply not an issue: Joseph Conrad didn't speak English fluently till his twenties, and is considered one of the greats of English literature.

                            The term "native speaker" is also a little slippery, and includes several issues but "native speaker texts" as in texts for native speakers does not seem to be problematic. There are native speakers of English. Books are written with them as the reading target. There are many people in the gray area between native speaker and non-native speaker, but this does not mean we should stop using the word. 

                            "non-graded" is also clear, but a little clumsy!  

                            I'd follow Oscar Wilde's advice, stylenot sincerity is the vital thing, and use "native speaker" texts. 

                            Language should be beautiful.


                            Mark


                            On 6 April 2013 00:51, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:
                             

                            Hi Everyone,
                            I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
                            I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
                            Best Regards,
                            Juan        

                            From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
                            To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
                            Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
                             
                            Hi Mike,

                            How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

                            I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

                            Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

                            All the best,
                            Aaron.

                            On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
                             
                            Dear All,

                            For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

                            Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

                            However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

                            Thank you for your input.

                            Mike Misner

                            --
                            Aaron D. Jolly.

                            Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
                            (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

                            *Director of Content Development,
                            Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

                            *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
                             Email: aaron.jolly@...

                            *Teacher Trainer. 
                             
                            *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
                             -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
                             -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
                             Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 




                            --

                            Mark Brierley
                            School of General Education
                            Shinshu University
                            Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                            +81 263 37-2923
                            mobile 090 4464 6391

                            --

                            My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                            http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/






                            --

                            Mark Brierley
                            School of General Education
                            Shinshu University
                            Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                            +81 263 37-2923
                            mobile 090 4464 6391

                            --

                            My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                            http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/
                          • Glen Hill
                            Mark, I will respectfully disagree that the way you are describing timetable and academic writing language should be called limited. To me, those are simply
                            Message 13 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mark,
                              I will respectfully disagree that the way you are describing timetable and academic writing language should be called limited. To me, those are simply appropriate vs. inappropriate word choices. Limited, to me, means you have only a fixed number of words to use (headwords).

                              What to call stuff that us ungraded or unleveled? How about ungraded or unleveled?  :)  Natural? Pure? Unadulterated? Fat-free?  :)

                              Glenski


                              On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                               

                              Hi Glen,

                              I think anyone who teaches academic writing would agree that the words used are restricted. For example "we conducted a survey" would be fine, while "we did a survey" less desirable and "we inflicted a survey on our students" inappropriate. On a timetable the words "departs" and "arrives" are used, not "sets off" and "gets there, if you're lucky". In fiction, in both cases, it would probably be the opposite. 

                              Dr Zeuss obviously makes a tough case for "authentic", but I would stand alongside a lot of other children (old and young) that it is great reading. It is also precisely the kind of literature that can and is used in extensive reading, where we need to define the difference between graded and non-graded. I guess science fiction tests the word "authentic" too. 

                              Graded or leveled sound fine, but Mike's question is what to call literature that is not graded or leveled. I don't think it is "authentic", because that immediately puts us into value-assumptions about writing that excludes anything written for language learners, implying that either their reading is not authentic, or that they should be reading texts much too difficult for them that will likely result in pain, boredom and failure. 

                              Mark



                              On 8 April 2013 11:03, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:
                               

                              Mark,
                              Good points, although I would argue against the use of "limited" for academic writing and train schedules. They have particularly special terminology, of course, but the other words (more general service in use) that are employed are not really restricted (limited) to a certain group, are they?

                              The wicket certainly does get sticky when we all try to define things, doesn't it!?

                              As for children's literature, for native speakers of any language, yes, I agree that there is probably a limited number of words used in the writing. I wonder how authors and publishers of material that is non-graded (like graded readers) go about figuring what words to use. (And, Dr. Seuss is a poor example for children's literature!)

                              The term "graded" or "leveled" actually sounds pretty good to me!


                              On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                               

                              Hi Glen, 

                              Children's literature also uses a limited vocabulary.

                              So that's not authentic?


                              Academic writing uses a limited vocabulary. 

                              So that's not authentic?


                              Train timetables use limited vocabulary, so they're not authentic? 


                              (Actually coming from the UK I may be on a sticky wicket here!) 


                              Mark



                              Mark Brierley
                              School of General Education
                              Shinshu University
                              Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                              +81 263 37-2923
                              mobile 090 4464 6391

                              --

                              My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                              http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                              On Apr 7, 2013 2:52 PM, "Glen Hill" <glenahill@...> wrote:
                               

                              Just my two cents...

                              Graded readers use a limited vocabulary compared to non-graded material, so in that sense they are indeed not authentic. That is, the author is limited to a certain word list (and grammar?) whether he likes it or not.

                              Glenski


                              On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                               

                              Hi Juan and all,

                              The problem with "authentic" is that it implies that other texts are not authentic.

                              So, if we use graded readers, we are saying to our students:

                              "Here, read this, it's not authentic"!

                              This is quite derogatory towards graded readers. This seems to be the position of many teachers who do not support ER. It may also be Juan's position!

                              In fact, the term authentic is very slippery.

                              If "authentic" means written for any native speaker, then... where is it? The closest to that would be, the Bible, Harry Potter, or perhaps street signs....

                              Most native speaker-oriented texts are written for specific and quite narrow audiences. Several great pieces of writing (such as Alice in Wonderland) are written to a single person.

                              If "authentic" means that the book is written for a specific audience, then graded readers are very much authentic since they are written for people learning English. Demographically this is a bigger group than the native speakers, so you could even argue graded readers are more authentic!

                              The native language of the authors is simply not an issue: Joseph Conrad didn't speak English fluently till his twenties, and is considered one of the greats of English literature.

                              The term "native speaker" is also a little slippery, and includes several issues but "native speaker texts" as in texts for native speakers does not seem to be problematic. There are native speakers of English. Books are written with them as the reading target. There are many people in the gray area between native speaker and non-native speaker, but this does not mean we should stop using the word. 

                              "non-graded" is also clear, but a little clumsy!  

                              I'd follow Oscar Wilde's advice, stylenot sincerity is the vital thing, and use "native speaker" texts. 

                              Language should be beautiful.


                              Mark


                              On 6 April 2013 00:51, juanarturo Pino <educaonline2@...> wrote:
                               

                              Hi Everyone,
                              I have for years used "authentic texts" instead of un-graded texts in an English as a foreign language context. The label authentic texts does aways with the  notion that for ER to happen, graded texts , authored native speakers is an essential requirement. Input, the claim goes can only be of any value if the text a student is reading is modified in such a way that satisfies i+1.  As much as I would liked to do ER that way, three issues clouded the topic. First,  enormous amounts of good readings of all genres were shifting from paper to electronic formats. Secondly, the notion of native speaker became unpopular and World Englishes was beginning to be taken more seriously in some quarters. At the same time, the identity of the Non-Native English Speaker (NNES) gained recognition. Finally, graded books were expensive for non-funded programs and say, a teacher in Venezuela had to buy only a few books to do ER and using his own dollars (in Venezuela, people do not have free acces to dollars). I offer the alternative to use authentic texts and a form to make a ER a reading-to-write activity. Three MA thesis plus my own work explored this "solution" to do ER. It did not matter if texts were written by native or non-native speakers or bilinguals, trilinguals. The criteria to select the text were several, chiefly, try them out with students with different levels of proficiency. That way taht were used with beginners were very "simple" and short texts. 
                              I also use the term native speaker with a pinch of salt. I am a native speaker of Spanish language with degrees in hispanic linguistics. In a ER program for american students I am writing the texts  (and  selecting/using authentic texts form the web until someone tells me that I can't use their texts in my clasess)  but this task is tremendously challenging for (1) students complain that I am using Chilean Spanish and not European Spanish as they would prefer and (2) I am aware that contact with English or Venezuelan Spanish has somehow attrited my "nativeness".  Lexical access for instance becomes an issue when in in contact with other languages, aging or even anxiety.   My point, ER should be looking for models with an eye on the web and the classroom with authentic texts. Such models should be flexible in order to be aplicable to most if not all foreign languages (i.e. French, German, Spanish, English, Japanese, Chinese, Turkey and so on and so forth). 
                              Best Regards,
                              Juan        

                              From: Aaron Jolly <jollyprofessor@...>
                              To: ExtensiveReading@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:56 AM
                              Subject: Re: [ExtensiveReading] Is there a termonological alternative to Native Speaker Text?
                               
                              Hi Mike,

                              How about... "Un-graded Text" or "Non-simplified Text"?

                              I humbly submit these two as a conversation starter. Sure some of the ER guru/thread champs on here will come up with better.

                              Mike - Long time no see, looking forward to hearing about your ER research at U. Hawaii.

                              All the best,
                              Aaron.

                              On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 1:07 PM, <mamisner1@...> wrote:
                               
                              Dear All,

                              For several reasons, English language learning researchers have made the case that the "Native Speaker" model should not be used. English is an international language and "Native Speakers" from around the world use English differently. How I speak to my professors differs greatly from how I speak to my son. Despite the fact that they are both "Native Speakers" of English. Language learners seldom achieve or need to achieve "Native Speaker" levels of proficiency. Further reasons could be given, but I believe that you understand my point.

                              Terms for types of literature have been changing over the past several decades. Kiddie Lit., Children's Literature, and Young Learner Literature form a kind of a group. Modified text is a word for Language Learner Literature. Authentic Text and Native Speaker Text are also considered synonymous, with the later more politically correct than the former.

                              However, because "Native Speaker" is, in my opinion, rightly under attack as terminology in our field, my question is the following. Can we coin a phrase that more accurately identifies the old dichotomy of Authentic and Simplified texts without using the term "Native Speaker" text?

                              Thank you for your input.

                              Mike Misner

                              --
                              Aaron D. Jolly.

                              Cell Phone: 010-3115-6354 
                              (Int. Call +82 remove first 0)

                              *Director of Content Development,
                              Visang Education - English Division, Seoul, Korea.

                              *Academic Advisor to EnglishCentral, Korea.
                               Email: aaron.jolly@...

                              *Teacher Trainer. 
                               
                              *Korea TESOL National Executive 2004-6, 2008, 2010-2011.
                               -Extensive Reading SIG Co-Chair.
                               -KOTESOL Teacher Trainer.
                               Web: http://www.kotesol.org/ 




                              --

                              Mark Brierley
                              School of General Education
                              Shinshu University
                              Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                              +81 263 37-2923
                              mobile 090 4464 6391

                              --

                              My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                              http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/






                              --

                              Mark Brierley
                              School of General Education
                              Shinshu University
                              Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                              +81 263 37-2923
                              mobile 090 4464 6391

                              --

                              My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                              http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/


                            • Glen Hill
                              Mark, Which of those speeds are you referring to if they aren t reading at this speed, then they can t really be said to be reading fluently ? Those figures
                              Message 14 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mark,
                                Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                Rob wrote:
                                "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                Glenski



                                On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                Rob Waring
                                waring.rob@...
                                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                 

                                Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                Mark
                                 


                                On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                1 word: 30 wpm

                                2 words: 60 wpm

                                3 words: 90 wpm

                                4 words: 120 wpm

                                5 words: 150 wpm

                                6 words: 180 wpm

                                7 words: 210 wpm


                                Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                Mark


                                Mark Brierley
                                School of General Education
                                Shinshu University
                                Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                +81 263 37-2923
                                mobile 090 4464 6391

                                --

                                My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Glen

                                What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                Rob Waring
                                waring.rob@...
                                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                 

                                Hi, Rob,
                                Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                Glenski




                                --

                                Mark Brierley
                                School of General Education
                                Shinshu University
                                Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                +81 263 37-2923
                                mobile 090 4464 6391

                                --

                                My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/



                              • Rob Waring
                                Hi Glen I agree fluent is a problem which is why I m experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on
                                Message 15 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Glen

                                  I agree 'fluent' is a problem which is why I'm experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on language issues in a text). In this way fluency is a component of freading.

                                  No one except the student can know if they are freading as we cannot open their heads and see they way they process texts (although we may indirectly infer this from watching them - and brain scans might do this). As I said in my post, freading is part of a scale or cline of reading focus from a heavier focus on the linguistic aspects of a text all the way up to fast understanding without a need to worry about unknown language (as you say reading without a dictionary).

                                  So I feel the question of whether Takashi is reading x% faster or slower that Y is a red herring. 

                                  As is the question of what speed freading occurs. The answer of course will be when the students processes text in a certain way but that itself will vary from text to text. I'd say I fread a heavy academic text slower than a web report on a football game. Of course we could measure the average speed at which people fread, but an average is not everyone, and not all texts are the same. 

                                  I feel if we are to give advice to people about what speed to read at the answer would be to find something to read so you are forgetting about the language and are entirely focussed on the message. i.e. they are in flow.

                                  Rob Waring
                                  waring.rob@...
                                  www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                  On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Mark,
                                  Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                  Rob wrote:
                                  "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                  Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                  Glenski



                                  On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                  Rob Waring
                                  waring.rob@...
                                  www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                  On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                  So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                  I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                  Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                  Mark
                                   


                                  On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                  Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                  The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                  As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                  In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                  Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                  1 word: 30 wpm

                                  2 words: 60 wpm

                                  3 words: 90 wpm

                                  4 words: 120 wpm

                                  5 words: 150 wpm

                                  6 words: 180 wpm

                                  7 words: 210 wpm


                                  Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                  Mark


                                  Mark Brierley
                                  School of General Education
                                  Shinshu University
                                  Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                  +81 263 37-2923
                                  mobile 090 4464 6391

                                  --

                                  My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                  http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                  On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Glen

                                  What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                  Rob Waring
                                  waring.rob@...
                                  www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                  On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                   

                                  Hi, Rob,
                                  Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                  Glenski




                                  --

                                  Mark Brierley
                                  School of General Education
                                  Shinshu University
                                  Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                  +81 263 37-2923
                                  mobile 090 4464 6391

                                  --

                                  My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                  http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/






                                • Mark Brierley
                                  Hi Glen, The reading speed depends on the vocabulary size of the reader, since vocabulary size has some correlation with the collocation lengths. This seems
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Apr 7, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Glen,

                                    The reading speed depends on the vocabulary size of the reader, since vocabulary size has some correlation with the collocation lengths. 

                                    This seems kind of intuitive, but those calculations give it a theoretical basis. 

                                    It also seems intuitive that slow reading is not fluent. "Fluency" has to have some connection with "flow", as Rob says. I think one problem we have in the English language is that "fluent" is also used to mean "really good at" a language, so our students want to be fluent english speakers, while our children were fluent when they were babbling babies.

                                    Fluent reading rates vary, but I 

                                    think 

                                    we 

                                    can 


                                    say 

                                    that 


                                    if 


                                    people 


                                    are 


                                    reading 

                                    one 



                                    word 



                                    at 


                                    time, then it's not fluent. So there is a minimum speed, something like those in the list above, below which we can assume the student is reading something too difficult, mindlessly bored or thinking about lunch. 


                                    Mark


                                    On 8 April 2013 14:41, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    Hi Glen


                                    I agree 'fluent' is a problem which is why I'm experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on language issues in a text). In this way fluency is a component of freading.

                                    No one except the student can know if they are freading as we cannot open their heads and see they way they process texts (although we may indirectly infer this from watching them - and brain scans might do this). As I said in my post, freading is part of a scale or cline of reading focus from a heavier focus on the linguistic aspects of a text all the way up to fast understanding without a need to worry about unknown language (as you say reading without a dictionary).

                                    So I feel the question of whether Takashi is reading x% faster or slower that Y is a red herring. 

                                    As is the question of what speed freading occurs. The answer of course will be when the students processes text in a certain way but that itself will vary from text to text. I'd say I fread a heavy academic text slower than a web report on a football game. Of course we could measure the average speed at which people fread, but an average is not everyone, and not all texts are the same. 

                                    I feel if we are to give advice to people about what speed to read at the answer would be to find something to read so you are forgetting about the language and are entirely focussed on the message. i.e. they are in flow.

                                    Rob Waring
                                    waring.rob@...
                                    www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                    On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                     

                                    Mark,
                                    Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                    Rob wrote:
                                    "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                    Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                    Glenski



                                    On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                    Rob Waring
                                    waring.rob@...
                                    www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                    On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                     

                                    Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                    So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                    I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                    Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                    Mark
                                     


                                    On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                    Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                    The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                    As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                    In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                    Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                    1 word: 30 wpm

                                    2 words: 60 wpm

                                    3 words: 90 wpm

                                    4 words: 120 wpm

                                    5 words: 150 wpm

                                    6 words: 180 wpm

                                    7 words: 210 wpm


                                    Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                    Mark


                                    Mark Brierley
                                    School of General Education
                                    Shinshu University
                                    Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                    +81 263 37-2923
                                    mobile 090 4464 6391

                                    --

                                    My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                    http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                    On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    Glen

                                    What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                    Rob Waring
                                    waring.rob@...
                                    www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                    On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                     

                                    Hi, Rob,
                                    Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                    Glenski




                                    --

                                    Mark Brierley
                                    School of General Education
                                    Shinshu University
                                    Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                    +81 263 37-2923
                                    mobile 090 4464 6391

                                    --

                                    My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                    http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/









                                    --

                                    Mark Brierley
                                    School of General Education
                                    Shinshu University
                                    Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                    +81 263 37-2923
                                    mobile 090 4464 6391

                                    --

                                    My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                    http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/
                                  • Glen Hill
                                    Looks like we re all stating pretty solid info, but we can t seem to agree on a measurable/quantifiable definition of fluent. I am not all that perturbed by
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Apr 8, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Looks like we're all stating pretty solid info, but we can't seem to agree on a measurable/quantifiable definition of fluent. I am not all that perturbed by that, though. There are a lot of terms that defy definition and description.

                                      Red herring, however, is not what I threw your way, Rob. A red herring is bait with no meaning that is thrown in the face of someone to purposefully distract them from a different purpose. I was not trying to distract you or throw you off track at all.

                                      Glenski



                                      On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Hi Glen,

                                      The reading speed depends on the vocabulary size of the reader, since vocabulary size has some correlation with the collocation lengths. 

                                      This seems kind of intuitive, but those calculations give it a theoretical basis. 

                                      It also seems intuitive that slow reading is not fluent. "Fluency" has to have some connection with "flow", as Rob says. I think one problem we have in the English language is that "fluent" is also used to mean "really good at" a language, so our students want to be fluent english speakers, while our children were fluent when they were babbling babies.

                                      Fluent reading rates vary, but I 

                                      think 

                                      we 

                                      can 


                                      say 

                                      that 


                                      if 


                                      people 


                                      are 


                                      reading 

                                      one 



                                      word 



                                      at 


                                      time, then it's not fluent. So there is a minimum speed, something like those in the list above, below which we can assume the student is reading something too difficult, mindlessly bored or thinking about lunch. 


                                      Mark


                                      On 8 April 2013 14:41, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Hi Glen


                                      I agree 'fluent' is a problem which is why I'm experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on language issues in a text). In this way fluency is a component of freading.

                                      No one except the student can know if they are freading as we cannot open their heads and see they way they process texts (although we may indirectly infer this from watching them - and brain scans might do this). As I said in my post, freading is part of a scale or cline of reading focus from a heavier focus on the linguistic aspects of a text all the way up to fast understanding without a need to worry about unknown language (as you say reading without a dictionary).

                                      So I feel the question of whether Takashi is reading x% faster or slower that Y is a red herring. 

                                      As is the question of what speed freading occurs. The answer of course will be when the students processes text in a certain way but that itself will vary from text to text. I'd say I fread a heavy academic text slower than a web report on a football game. Of course we could measure the average speed at which people fread, but an average is not everyone, and not all texts are the same. 

                                      I feel if we are to give advice to people about what speed to read at the answer would be to find something to read so you are forgetting about the language and are entirely focussed on the message. i.e. they are in flow.

                                      Rob Waring
                                      waring.rob@...
                                      www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                      On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      Mark,
                                      Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                      Rob wrote:
                                      "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                      Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                      Glenski



                                      On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                      Rob Waring
                                      waring.rob@...
                                      www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                      On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                      So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                      I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                      Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                      Mark
                                       


                                      On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                      Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                      The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                      As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                      In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                      Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                      1 word: 30 wpm

                                      2 words: 60 wpm

                                      3 words: 90 wpm

                                      4 words: 120 wpm

                                      5 words: 150 wpm

                                      6 words: 180 wpm

                                      7 words: 210 wpm


                                      Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                      Mark


                                      Mark Brierley
                                      School of General Education
                                      Shinshu University
                                      Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                      +81 263 37-2923
                                      mobile 090 4464 6391

                                      --

                                      My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                      http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                      On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Glen

                                      What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                      Rob Waring
                                      waring.rob@...
                                      www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                      On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                       

                                      Hi, Rob,
                                      Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                      Glenski




                                      --

                                      Mark Brierley
                                      School of General Education
                                      Shinshu University
                                      Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                      +81 263 37-2923
                                      mobile 090 4464 6391

                                      --

                                      My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                      http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/









                                      --

                                      Mark Brierley
                                      School of General Education
                                      Shinshu University
                                      Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                      +81 263 37-2923
                                      mobile 090 4464 6391

                                      --

                                      My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                      http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/


                                    • Rob Waring
                                      Hi Glen ;) Ha, I didn t mean it that way. I meant I feel trying to find one wpm rate that readers should read at to be fluent is actually not very helpful.
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Apr 8, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi Glen

                                        ;)  Ha, I didn't mean it that way. I meant I feel trying to find one wpm rate that readers should read at to be fluent is actually not very helpful.

                                        Rob Waring
                                        waring.rob@...
                                        www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                        On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                         

                                        Looks like we're all stating pretty solid info, but we can't seem to agree on a measurable/quantifiable definition of fluent. I am not all that perturbed by that, though. There are a lot of terms that defy definition and description.

                                        Red herring, however, is not what I threw your way, Rob. A red herring is bait with no meaning that is thrown in the face of someone to purposefully distract them from a different purpose. I was not trying to distract you or throw you off track at all.

                                        Glenski



                                        On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        Hi Glen,

                                        The reading speed depends on the vocabulary size of the reader, since vocabulary size has some correlation with the collocation lengths. 

                                        This seems kind of intuitive, but those calculations give it a theoretical basis. 

                                        It also seems intuitive that slow reading is not fluent. "Fluency" has to have some connection with "flow", as Rob says. I think one problem we have in the English language is that "fluent" is also used to mean "really good at" a language, so our students want to be fluent english speakers, while our children were fluent when they were babbling babies.

                                        Fluent reading rates vary, but I 

                                        think 

                                        we 

                                        can 


                                        say 

                                        that 


                                        if 


                                        people 


                                        are 


                                        reading 

                                        one 



                                        word 



                                        at 


                                        time, then it's not fluent. So there is a minimum speed, something like those in the list above, below which we can assume the student is reading something too difficult, mindlessly bored or thinking about lunch. 


                                        Mark


                                        On 8 April 2013 14:41, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        Hi Glen


                                        I agree 'fluent' is a problem which is why I'm experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on language issues in a text). In this way fluency is a component of freading.

                                        No one except the student can know if they are freading as we cannot open their heads and see they way they process texts (although we may indirectly infer this from watching them - and brain scans might do this). As I said in my post, freading is part of a scale or cline of reading focus from a heavier focus on the linguistic aspects of a text all the way up to fast understanding without a need to worry about unknown language (as you say reading without a dictionary).

                                        So I feel the question of whether Takashi is reading x% faster or slower that Y is a red herring. 

                                        As is the question of what speed freading occurs. The answer of course will be when the students processes text in a certain way but that itself will vary from text to text. I'd say I fread a heavy academic text slower than a web report on a football game. Of course we could measure the average speed at which people fread, but an average is not everyone, and not all texts are the same. 

                                        I feel if we are to give advice to people about what speed to read at the answer would be to find something to read so you are forgetting about the language and are entirely focussed on the message. i.e. they are in flow.

                                        Rob Waring
                                        waring.rob@...
                                        www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                        On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                         

                                        Mark,
                                        Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                        Rob wrote:
                                        "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                        Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                        Glenski



                                        On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                        Rob Waring
                                        waring.rob@...
                                        www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                        On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                         

                                        Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                        So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                        I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                        Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                        Mark
                                         


                                        On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                        Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                        The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                        As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                        In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                        Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                        1 word: 30 wpm

                                        2 words: 60 wpm

                                        3 words: 90 wpm

                                        4 words: 120 wpm

                                        5 words: 150 wpm

                                        6 words: 180 wpm

                                        7 words: 210 wpm


                                        Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                        Mark


                                        Mark Brierley
                                        School of General Education
                                        Shinshu University
                                        Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                        +81 263 37-2923
                                        mobile 090 4464 6391

                                        --

                                        My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                        http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                        On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        Glen

                                        What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                        Rob Waring
                                        waring.rob@...
                                        www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                        On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                         

                                        Hi, Rob,
                                        Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                        Glenski




                                        --

                                        Mark Brierley
                                        School of General Education
                                        Shinshu University
                                        Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                        +81 263 37-2923
                                        mobile 090 4464 6391

                                        --

                                        My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                        http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/










                                        --

                                        Mark Brierley
                                        School of General Education
                                        Shinshu University
                                        Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                        +81 263 37-2923
                                        mobile 090 4464 6391

                                        --

                                        My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                        http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/




                                      • Glen Hill
                                        Rob, Well, of course there is no single WPM speed that we should try to tell students to attain. As you wrote (I think) above, reading speed depends on many
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Apr 8, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Rob,
                                          Well, of course there is no single WPM speed that we should try to tell students to attain. As you wrote (I think) above, reading speed depends on many things, such as what material one reads (newspaper, graded reader, science book, movie subtitle, email, etc.) and what one's proficiency is (including vocabulary knowledge).

                                          I do feel that we need to explain something to our students about speed, and the above info is definitely part of it. I give them all a copy of a graded reader and have them measure an average speed over 3 1-minute trials at the beginning and end of the semester. Unfortunately, they have not improved at all, so it can be disappointing to do this, and I may stop as of this year, but it's still important that they TRY to see what kind of reading speed they have. A second option is for them to measure at their own levels, using a graded reader that is right for them. If they keep a record of this regularly during the semester, it might help for them to see things. Sadly, though, I cannot coax them to do this on their own, it takes valuable time to do it in the classroom, and as I wrote above, they didn't seem to improve anyway. So, even with one genre (a graded reader, either fiction or non-fiction), I'm seeing only a very general item on reading speed in my classes (that is, a roughly 100-120 WPM speed, fairly typical for university students using graded readers, with some as low as 40 or 70 WPM and some as high as nearly 300 WPM).

                                          Glenski


                                          On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          Hi Glen


                                          ;)  Ha, I didn't mean it that way. I meant I feel trying to find one wpm rate that readers should read at to be fluent is actually not very helpful.

                                          Rob Waring
                                          waring.rob@...
                                          www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                          On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                           

                                          Looks like we're all stating pretty solid info, but we can't seem to agree on a measurable/quantifiable definition of fluent. I am not all that perturbed by that, though. There are a lot of terms that defy definition and description.

                                          Red herring, however, is not what I threw your way, Rob. A red herring is bait with no meaning that is thrown in the face of someone to purposefully distract them from a different purpose. I was not trying to distract you or throw you off track at all.

                                          Glenski



                                          On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          Hi Glen,

                                          The reading speed depends on the vocabulary size of the reader, since vocabulary size has some correlation with the collocation lengths. 

                                          This seems kind of intuitive, but those calculations give it a theoretical basis. 

                                          It also seems intuitive that slow reading is not fluent. "Fluency" has to have some connection with "flow", as Rob says. I think one problem we have in the English language is that "fluent" is also used to mean "really good at" a language, so our students want to be fluent english speakers, while our children were fluent when they were babbling babies.

                                          Fluent reading rates vary, but I 

                                          think 

                                          we 

                                          can 


                                          say 

                                          that 


                                          if 


                                          people 


                                          are 


                                          reading 

                                          one 



                                          word 



                                          at 


                                          time, then it's not fluent. So there is a minimum speed, something like those in the list above, below which we can assume the student is reading something too difficult, mindlessly bored or thinking about lunch. 


                                          Mark


                                          On 8 April 2013 14:41, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          Hi Glen


                                          I agree 'fluent' is a problem which is why I'm experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on language issues in a text). In this way fluency is a component of freading.

                                          No one except the student can know if they are freading as we cannot open their heads and see they way they process texts (although we may indirectly infer this from watching them - and brain scans might do this). As I said in my post, freading is part of a scale or cline of reading focus from a heavier focus on the linguistic aspects of a text all the way up to fast understanding without a need to worry about unknown language (as you say reading without a dictionary).

                                          So I feel the question of whether Takashi is reading x% faster or slower that Y is a red herring. 

                                          As is the question of what speed freading occurs. The answer of course will be when the students processes text in a certain way but that itself will vary from text to text. I'd say I fread a heavy academic text slower than a web report on a football game. Of course we could measure the average speed at which people fread, but an average is not everyone, and not all texts are the same. 

                                          I feel if we are to give advice to people about what speed to read at the answer would be to find something to read so you are forgetting about the language and are entirely focussed on the message. i.e. they are in flow.

                                          Rob Waring
                                          waring.rob@...
                                          www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                          On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                           

                                          Mark,
                                          Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                          Rob wrote:
                                          "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                          Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                          Glenski



                                          On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                          Rob Waring
                                          waring.rob@...
                                          www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                          On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                           

                                          Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                          So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                          I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                          Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                          Mark
                                           


                                          On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                          Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                          The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                          As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                          In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                          Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                          1 word: 30 wpm

                                          2 words: 60 wpm

                                          3 words: 90 wpm

                                          4 words: 120 wpm

                                          5 words: 150 wpm

                                          6 words: 180 wpm

                                          7 words: 210 wpm


                                          Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                          Mark


                                          Mark Brierley
                                          School of General Education
                                          Shinshu University
                                          Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                          +81 263 37-2923
                                          mobile 090 4464 6391

                                          --

                                          My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                          http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                          On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          Glen

                                          What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                          Rob Waring
                                          waring.rob@...
                                          www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                          On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                           

                                          Hi, Rob,
                                          Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                          Glenski




                                          --

                                          Mark Brierley
                                          School of General Education
                                          Shinshu University
                                          Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                          +81 263 37-2923
                                          mobile 090 4464 6391

                                          --

                                          My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                          http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/










                                          --

                                          Mark Brierley
                                          School of General Education
                                          Shinshu University
                                          Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                          +81 263 37-2923
                                          mobile 090 4464 6391

                                          --

                                          My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                          http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/





                                        • Mark Brierley
                                          Hi Glen, Regarding measuring reading speed, I have reading time at the beginning of each class and try to measure their reading speed at the end of that three
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Apr 8, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi Glen,

                                            Regarding measuring reading speed, I have reading time at the beginning of each class and try to measure their reading speed at the end of that three or four times a semester. It may take up valuable class time, but I think it is valuable enough an exercise that it should do!

                                            I do this by calling out start and stop over a 2-minute period, getting them to start from a chapter beginning, page beginning or some clear point, then stop when I say so. They've already warmed up and are reading a book they have chosen, so it should be more accurate than a cold one-minute reading on a book the teacher has chosen. 

                                            Of course it is less accurate objectively, since I'm not specifying the book, but the important point is how quickly the students are reading the books they have chosen. 

                                            Also I have to look out for any students with manga or those consequence stories you have to choose which page to go to next.

                                            They estimate their wpms by counting the number of lines they have read, estimating the number of words per line, multiplying them then dividing by two because it was over two minutes. 

                                            Usually they can see some progress in reading speed over the semester and/or are going up in levels.

                                            Also, importantly, it identifies anyone who is reading really slowly (less than 60 wpm) so I can suggest, quietly and gently, that they go down a level or three.

                                            Mark

                                             


                                            On 9 April 2013 08:51, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Rob,
                                            Well, of course there is no single WPM speed that we should try to tell students to attain. As you wrote (I think) above, reading speed depends on many things, such as what material one reads (newspaper, graded reader, science book, movie subtitle, email, etc.) and what one's proficiency is (including vocabulary knowledge).

                                            I do feel that we need to explain something to our students about speed, and the above info is definitely part of it. I give them all a copy of a graded reader and have them measure an average speed over 3 1-minute trials at the beginning and end of the semester. Unfortunately, they have not improved at all, so it can be disappointing to do this, and I may stop as of this year, but it's still important that they TRY to see what kind of reading speed they have. A second option is for them to measure at their own levels, using a graded reader that is right for them. If they keep a record of this regularly during the semester, it might help for them to see things. Sadly, though, I cannot coax them to do this on their own, it takes valuable time to do it in the classroom, and as I wrote above, they didn't seem to improve anyway. So, even with one genre (a graded reader, either fiction or non-fiction), I'm seeing only a very general item on reading speed in my classes (that is, a roughly 100-120 WPM speed, fairly typical for university students using graded readers, with some as low as 40 or 70 WPM and some as high as nearly 300 WPM).

                                            Glenski


                                            On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Hi Glen


                                            ;)  Ha, I didn't mean it that way. I meant I feel trying to find one wpm rate that readers should read at to be fluent is actually not very helpful.

                                            Rob Waring
                                            waring.rob@...
                                            www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                            On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                             

                                            Looks like we're all stating pretty solid info, but we can't seem to agree on a measurable/quantifiable definition of fluent. I am not all that perturbed by that, though. There are a lot of terms that defy definition and description.

                                            Red herring, however, is not what I threw your way, Rob. A red herring is bait with no meaning that is thrown in the face of someone to purposefully distract them from a different purpose. I was not trying to distract you or throw you off track at all.

                                            Glenski



                                            On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Hi Glen,

                                            The reading speed depends on the vocabulary size of the reader, since vocabulary size has some correlation with the collocation lengths. 

                                            This seems kind of intuitive, but those calculations give it a theoretical basis. 

                                            It also seems intuitive that slow reading is not fluent. "Fluency" has to have some connection with "flow", as Rob says. I think one problem we have in the English language is that "fluent" is also used to mean "really good at" a language, so our students want to be fluent english speakers, while our children were fluent when they were babbling babies.

                                            Fluent reading rates vary, but I 

                                            think 

                                            we 

                                            can 


                                            say 

                                            that 


                                            if 


                                            people 


                                            are 


                                            reading 

                                            one 



                                            word 



                                            at 


                                            time, then it's not fluent. So there is a minimum speed, something like those in the list above, below which we can assume the student is reading something too difficult, mindlessly bored or thinking about lunch. 


                                            Mark


                                            On 8 April 2013 14:41, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Hi Glen


                                            I agree 'fluent' is a problem which is why I'm experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on language issues in a text). In this way fluency is a component of freading.

                                            No one except the student can know if they are freading as we cannot open their heads and see they way they process texts (although we may indirectly infer this from watching them - and brain scans might do this). As I said in my post, freading is part of a scale or cline of reading focus from a heavier focus on the linguistic aspects of a text all the way up to fast understanding without a need to worry about unknown language (as you say reading without a dictionary).

                                            So I feel the question of whether Takashi is reading x% faster or slower that Y is a red herring. 

                                            As is the question of what speed freading occurs. The answer of course will be when the students processes text in a certain way but that itself will vary from text to text. I'd say I fread a heavy academic text slower than a web report on a football game. Of course we could measure the average speed at which people fread, but an average is not everyone, and not all texts are the same. 

                                            I feel if we are to give advice to people about what speed to read at the answer would be to find something to read so you are forgetting about the language and are entirely focussed on the message. i.e. they are in flow.

                                            Rob Waring
                                            waring.rob@...
                                            www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                            On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                             

                                            Mark,
                                            Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                            Rob wrote:
                                            "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                            Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                            Glenski



                                            On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                            Rob Waring
                                            waring.rob@...
                                            www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                            On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                             

                                            Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                            So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                            I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                            Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                            Mark
                                             


                                            On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                            Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                            The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                            As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                            In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                            Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                            1 word: 30 wpm

                                            2 words: 60 wpm

                                            3 words: 90 wpm

                                            4 words: 120 wpm

                                            5 words: 150 wpm

                                            6 words: 180 wpm

                                            7 words: 210 wpm


                                            Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                            Mark


                                            Mark Brierley
                                            School of General Education
                                            Shinshu University
                                            Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                            +81 263 37-2923
                                            mobile 090 4464 6391

                                            --

                                            My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                            http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                            On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Glen

                                            What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                            Rob Waring
                                            waring.rob@...
                                            www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                            On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                             

                                            Hi, Rob,
                                            Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                            Glenski




                                            --

                                            Mark Brierley
                                            School of General Education
                                            Shinshu University
                                            Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                            +81 263 37-2923
                                            mobile 090 4464 6391

                                            --

                                            My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                            http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/










                                            --

                                            Mark Brierley
                                            School of General Education
                                            Shinshu University
                                            Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                            +81 263 37-2923
                                            mobile 090 4464 6391

                                            --

                                            My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                            http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/








                                            --

                                            Mark Brierley
                                            School of General Education
                                            Shinshu University
                                            Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                            +81 263 37-2923
                                            mobile 090 4464 6391

                                            --

                                            My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                            http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/
                                          • Glen Hill
                                            Mark, I definitely agree that a cold start to measure reading speed is not the way to go. Going up in levels is another bugaboo of mine. I don t think anyone
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Apr 8, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Mark,
                                              I definitely agree that a cold start to measure reading speed is not the way to go.

                                              Going up in levels is another bugaboo of mine. I don't think anyone can really say quantitatively how to assess when it's time. Tom Robb suggests that students give a higher level a try after they pass 6 MoodleReader quizzes, but if you think about it, that's not really a lot of effort to have put in to go up a level. I don't have too many students asking me about this, so for the time being, I don't worry that much. Basically, I've seen more students simply testing the waters and reading slightly above their level than AT their assessed levels.

                                              I have a colleague who teaches a content course in second year, and he automatically puts the National Geographic Footprint readers on them. Unfortunately, they are way above most students' ability, and they struggle to understand them and pass the quizzes, but he has set a really low number of word count for their assessment as part of their grade. I'm not sure if he's doing the right thing even with that lax instruction. (He flunked almost 20% of his class last semester, and most of the reason was that they didn't even read that low amount of books. Perhaps word will get around this semester that they should. I'm keeping my eye on that.)

                                              Glen


                                              On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              Hi Glen,

                                              Regarding measuring reading speed, I have reading time at the beginning of each class and try to measure their reading speed at the end of that three or four times a semester. It may take up valuable class time, but I think it is valuable enough an exercise that it should do!

                                              I do this by calling out start and stop over a 2-minute period, getting them to start from a chapter beginning, page beginning or some clear point, then stop when I say so. They've already warmed up and are reading a book they have chosen, so it should be more accurate than a cold one-minute reading on a book the teacher has chosen. 

                                              Of course it is less accurate objectively, since I'm not specifying the book, but the important point is how quickly the students are reading the books they have chosen. 

                                              Also I have to look out for any students with manga or those consequence stories you have to choose which page to go to next.

                                              They estimate their wpms by counting the number of lines they have read, estimating the number of words per line, multiplying them then dividing by two because it was over two minutes. 

                                              Usually they can see some progress in reading speed over the semester and/or are going up in levels.

                                              Also, importantly, it identifies anyone who is reading really slowly (less than 60 wpm) so I can suggest, quietly and gently, that they go down a level or three.

                                              Mark

                                               


                                              On 9 April 2013 08:51, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              Rob,
                                              Well, of course there is no single WPM speed that we should try to tell students to attain. As you wrote (I think) above, reading speed depends on many things, such as what material one reads (newspaper, graded reader, science book, movie subtitle, email, etc.) and what one's proficiency is (including vocabulary knowledge).

                                              I do feel that we need to explain something to our students about speed, and the above info is definitely part of it. I give them all a copy of a graded reader and have them measure an average speed over 3 1-minute trials at the beginning and end of the semester. Unfortunately, they have not improved at all, so it can be disappointing to do this, and I may stop as of this year, but it's still important that they TRY to see what kind of reading speed they have. A second option is for them to measure at their own levels, using a graded reader that is right for them. If they keep a record of this regularly during the semester, it might help for them to see things. Sadly, though, I cannot coax them to do this on their own, it takes valuable time to do it in the classroom, and as I wrote above, they didn't seem to improve anyway. So, even with one genre (a graded reader, either fiction or non-fiction), I'm seeing only a very general item on reading speed in my classes (that is, a roughly 100-120 WPM speed, fairly typical for university students using graded readers, with some as low as 40 or 70 WPM and some as high as nearly 300 WPM).

                                              Glenski


                                              On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              Hi Glen


                                              ;)  Ha, I didn't mean it that way. I meant I feel trying to find one wpm rate that readers should read at to be fluent is actually not very helpful.

                                              Rob Waring
                                              waring.rob@...
                                              www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                              On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                               

                                              Looks like we're all stating pretty solid info, but we can't seem to agree on a measurable/quantifiable definition of fluent. I am not all that perturbed by that, though. There are a lot of terms that defy definition and description.

                                              Red herring, however, is not what I threw your way, Rob. A red herring is bait with no meaning that is thrown in the face of someone to purposefully distract them from a different purpose. I was not trying to distract you or throw you off track at all.

                                              Glenski



                                              On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              Hi Glen,

                                              The reading speed depends on the vocabulary size of the reader, since vocabulary size has some correlation with the collocation lengths. 

                                              This seems kind of intuitive, but those calculations give it a theoretical basis. 

                                              It also seems intuitive that slow reading is not fluent. "Fluency" has to have some connection with "flow", as Rob says. I think one problem we have in the English language is that "fluent" is also used to mean "really good at" a language, so our students want to be fluent english speakers, while our children were fluent when they were babbling babies.

                                              Fluent reading rates vary, but I 

                                              think 

                                              we 

                                              can 


                                              say 

                                              that 


                                              if 


                                              people 


                                              are 


                                              reading 

                                              one 



                                              word 



                                              at 


                                              time, then it's not fluent. So there is a minimum speed, something like those in the list above, below which we can assume the student is reading something too difficult, mindlessly bored or thinking about lunch. 


                                              Mark


                                              On 8 April 2013 14:41, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              Hi Glen


                                              I agree 'fluent' is a problem which is why I'm experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on language issues in a text). In this way fluency is a component of freading.

                                              No one except the student can know if they are freading as we cannot open their heads and see they way they process texts (although we may indirectly infer this from watching them - and brain scans might do this). As I said in my post, freading is part of a scale or cline of reading focus from a heavier focus on the linguistic aspects of a text all the way up to fast understanding without a need to worry about unknown language (as you say reading without a dictionary).

                                              So I feel the question of whether Takashi is reading x% faster or slower that Y is a red herring. 

                                              As is the question of what speed freading occurs. The answer of course will be when the students processes text in a certain way but that itself will vary from text to text. I'd say I fread a heavy academic text slower than a web report on a football game. Of course we could measure the average speed at which people fread, but an average is not everyone, and not all texts are the same. 

                                              I feel if we are to give advice to people about what speed to read at the answer would be to find something to read so you are forgetting about the language and are entirely focussed on the message. i.e. they are in flow.

                                              Rob Waring
                                              waring.rob@...
                                              www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                              On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                               

                                              Mark,
                                              Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                              Rob wrote:
                                              "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                              Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                              Glenski



                                              On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                              Rob Waring
                                              waring.rob@...
                                              www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                              On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                               

                                              Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                              So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                              I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                              Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                              Mark
                                               


                                              On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                              Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                              The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                              As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                              In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                              Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                              1 word: 30 wpm

                                              2 words: 60 wpm

                                              3 words: 90 wpm

                                              4 words: 120 wpm

                                              5 words: 150 wpm

                                              6 words: 180 wpm

                                              7 words: 210 wpm


                                              Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                              Mark


                                              Mark Brierley
                                              School of General Education
                                              Shinshu University
                                              Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                              +81 263 37-2923
                                              mobile 090 4464 6391

                                              --

                                              My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                              http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                              On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              Glen

                                              What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                              Rob Waring
                                              waring.rob@...
                                              www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                              On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                               

                                              Hi, Rob,
                                              Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                              Glenski




                                              --

                                              Mark Brierley
                                              School of General Education
                                              Shinshu University
                                              Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                              +81 263 37-2923
                                              mobile 090 4464 6391

                                              --

                                              My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                              http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/










                                              --

                                              Mark Brierley
                                              School of General Education
                                              Shinshu University
                                              Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                              +81 263 37-2923
                                              mobile 090 4464 6391

                                              --

                                              My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                              http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/








                                              --

                                              Mark Brierley
                                              School of General Education
                                              Shinshu University
                                              Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                              +81 263 37-2923
                                              mobile 090 4464 6391

                                              --

                                              My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                              http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/


                                            • Rob Waring
                                              Glen, Co-incidentally, this article asks the same question. Stumbled on it by accident.. http://zeplin.jp/how-many-words-to-fluency/ Rob Waring
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Apr 14, 2013
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Glen,

                                                Co-incidentally, this article asks the same question. Stumbled on it by accident..




                                                Rob Waring
                                                waring.rob@...
                                                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                                On Apr 9, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                                 

                                                Mark,
                                                I definitely agree that a cold start to measure reading speed is not the way to go.

                                                Going up in levels is another bugaboo of mine. I don't think anyone can really say quantitatively how to assess when it's time. Tom Robb suggests that students give a higher level a try after they pass 6 MoodleReader quizzes, but if you think about it, that's not really a lot of effort to have put in to go up a level. I don't have too many students asking me about this, so for the time being, I don't worry that much. Basically, I've seen more students simply testing the waters and reading slightly above their level than AT their assessed levels.

                                                I have a colleague who teaches a content course in second year, and he automatically puts the National Geographic Footprint readers on them. Unfortunately, they are way above most students' ability, and they struggle to understand them and pass the quizzes, but he has set a really low number of word count for their assessment as part of their grade. I'm not sure if he's doing the right thing even with that lax instruction. (He flunked almost 20% of his class last semester, and most of the reason was that they didn't even read that low amount of books. Perhaps word will get around this semester that they should. I'm keeping my eye on that.)

                                                Glen


                                                On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                Hi Glen,

                                                Regarding measuring reading speed, I have reading time at the beginning of each class and try to measure their reading speed at the end of that three or four times a semester. It may take up valuable class time, but I think it is valuable enough an exercise that it should do!

                                                I do this by calling out start and stop over a 2-minute period, getting them to start from a chapter beginning, page beginning or some clear point, then stop when I say so. They've already warmed up and are reading a book they have chosen, so it should be more accurate than a cold one-minute reading on a book the teacher has chosen. 

                                                Of course it is less accurate objectively, since I'm not specifying the book, but the important point is how quickly the students are reading the books they have chosen. 

                                                Also I have to look out for any students with manga or those consequence stories you have to choose which page to go to next.

                                                They estimate their wpms by counting the number of lines they have read, estimating the number of words per line, multiplying them then dividing by two because it was over two minutes. 

                                                Usually they can see some progress in reading speed over the semester and/or are going up in levels.

                                                Also, importantly, it identifies anyone who is reading really slowly (less than 60 wpm) so I can suggest, quietly and gently, that they go down a level or three.

                                                Mark

                                                 


                                                On 9 April 2013 08:51, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                Rob,
                                                Well, of course there is no single WPM speed that we should try to tell students to attain. As you wrote (I think) above, reading speed depends on many things, such as what material one reads (newspaper, graded reader, science book, movie subtitle, email, etc.) and what one's proficiency is (including vocabulary knowledge).

                                                I do feel that we need to explain something to our students about speed, and the above info is definitely part of it. I give them all a copy of a graded reader and have them measure an average speed over 3 1-minute trials at the beginning and end of the semester. Unfortunately, they have not improved at all, so it can be disappointing to do this, and I may stop as of this year, but it's still important that they TRY to see what kind of reading speed they have. A second option is for them to measure at their own levels, using a graded reader that is right for them. If they keep a record of this regularly during the semester, it might help for them to see things. Sadly, though, I cannot coax them to do this on their own, it takes valuable time to do it in the classroom, and as I wrote above, they didn't seem to improve anyway. So, even with one genre (a graded reader, either fiction or non-fiction), I'm seeing only a very general item on reading speed in my classes (that is, a roughly 100-120 WPM speed, fairly typical for university students using graded readers, with some as low as 40 or 70 WPM and some as high as nearly 300 WPM).

                                                Glenski


                                                On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                Hi Glen


                                                ;)  Ha, I didn't mean it that way. I meant I feel trying to find one wpm rate that readers should read at to be fluent is actually not very helpful.

                                                Rob Waring
                                                waring.rob@...
                                                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                                On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                                 

                                                Looks like we're all stating pretty solid info, but we can't seem to agree on a measurable/quantifiable definition of fluent. I am not all that perturbed by that, though. There are a lot of terms that defy definition and description.

                                                Red herring, however, is not what I threw your way, Rob. A red herring is bait with no meaning that is thrown in the face of someone to purposefully distract them from a different purpose. I was not trying to distract you or throw you off track at all.

                                                Glenski



                                                On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                Hi Glen,

                                                The reading speed depends on the vocabulary size of the reader, since vocabulary size has some correlation with the collocation lengths. 

                                                This seems kind of intuitive, but those calculations give it a theoretical basis. 

                                                It also seems intuitive that slow reading is not fluent. "Fluency" has to have some connection with "flow", as Rob says. I think one problem we have in the English language is that "fluent" is also used to mean "really good at" a language, so our students want to be fluent english speakers, while our children were fluent when they were babbling babies.

                                                Fluent reading rates vary, but I 

                                                think 

                                                we 

                                                can 


                                                say 

                                                that 


                                                if 


                                                people 


                                                are 


                                                reading 

                                                one 



                                                word 



                                                at 


                                                time, then it's not fluent. So there is a minimum speed, something like those in the list above, below which we can assume the student is reading something too difficult, mindlessly bored or thinking about lunch. 


                                                Mark


                                                On 8 April 2013 14:41, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                Hi Glen


                                                I agree 'fluent' is a problem which is why I'm experimenting with the term freading (fast, fluent reading with high comprehension and minimal focus on language issues in a text). In this way fluency is a component of freading.

                                                No one except the student can know if they are freading as we cannot open their heads and see they way they process texts (although we may indirectly infer this from watching them - and brain scans might do this). As I said in my post, freading is part of a scale or cline of reading focus from a heavier focus on the linguistic aspects of a text all the way up to fast understanding without a need to worry about unknown language (as you say reading without a dictionary).

                                                So I feel the question of whether Takashi is reading x% faster or slower that Y is a red herring. 

                                                As is the question of what speed freading occurs. The answer of course will be when the students processes text in a certain way but that itself will vary from text to text. I'd say I fread a heavy academic text slower than a web report on a football game. Of course we could measure the average speed at which people fread, but an average is not everyone, and not all texts are the same. 

                                                I feel if we are to give advice to people about what speed to read at the answer would be to find something to read so you are forgetting about the language and are entirely focussed on the message. i.e. they are in flow.

                                                Rob Waring
                                                waring.rob@...
                                                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                                On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                                 

                                                Mark,
                                                Which of those speeds are you referring to "if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently"? Those figures are very interesting, by the way!

                                                Rob wrote:
                                                "What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it."

                                                Yes, absolutely, fluency must include some measure of comprehension. But at what speed do we actually say someone is fluent/reading comprehensively? Younger/Earlier learners may read slower yet still have good comprehension. I think the term "fluent" is a real can of worms here, because it depends on one's experience (i.e., length of time learning to read). Do we compare age groups and say that my son isn't reading fluently because he reads slower than other Japanese kids or Americans his age, even though he may comprehend most of what he reads? Or do we say that a person isn't fluent because their reading speed is slower because they've not studied long enough? These questions make it very hard to respond. Off the top of my head, I'd have to ROUGHLY define a "fluent reader" as someone who has enough vocabulary and reading strategy skills to read without a dictionary most of the time (heck, even I need one depending on the material) and who can digest most of the material accurately and be fairly fast in their speed (hard to pin down any kind of "speed limit" in my mind) without the need to reread very much (again, even native speakers do). Or do we want to impose an age group restriction on top of all that? For example, we could say that Takashi is reading less fluently than American/British kids his age just because he doesn't have his speed up to more than 75% of theirs? Heck, I'm open to definitions here.

                                                Glenski



                                                On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Rob Waring <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                Note sure they have Mark.  Someone need a Ph.D?


                                                Rob Waring
                                                waring.rob@...
                                                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                                On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                                 

                                                Talking about academic writing, following on from my search to reduce fluency to mathematics, is there any research out there on how the number and length of chunks (collocations/colligations) correspond with vocabulary size? 

                                                So if  somebody knows x words, how long is the longest chunk they are likely to know, and many 2-,  3-,  4- word chunks would they know?

                                                I started to look at that on the BNC, and found that of the most common 1000 bits of language, only about half are single words, and there is one four "word" chunk in there: I don't know. 

                                                Is there anything out there, and has anyone looked at what is happening in graded readers?

                                                Mark
                                                 


                                                On 7 April 2013 17:57, Mark Brierley <mark2@...> wrote:

                                                Here's another perspective on reading speed and fluency.

                                                The inner ear can store about two seconds of language when we are listening. Reading uses some similar processing to listening.

                                                As language proficiency improves, the length of chunks increases. At the beginning, it's single vocabulary, then two-word chunks, then three and so on. Native speaker language is generally in seven-word chunks. Government documents, and academic writing are more, but they are generally designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten, so that is entirely understandable. You get my point.

                                                In order for the brain to process the language, the reader needs to get through enough words in the two seconds of working memory to be able to decipher it.

                                                Doing some calculations, this gives us reading speeds depending on how many words the reader can process at a time:


                                                1 word: 30 wpm

                                                2 words: 60 wpm

                                                3 words: 90 wpm

                                                4 words: 120 wpm

                                                5 words: 150 wpm

                                                6 words: 180 wpm

                                                7 words: 210 wpm


                                                Obviously readers have to know the words as well, but if they aren't reading at this speed, then they can't really be said to be reading fluently.  


                                                Mark


                                                Mark Brierley
                                                School of General Education
                                                Shinshu University
                                                Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                                +81 263 37-2923
                                                mobile 090 4464 6391

                                                --

                                                My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                                http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/

                                                On Apr 7, 2013 5:10 PM, "Rob Waring" <waring.rob@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                Glen

                                                What would your parameters be for defining the mental processing aspect of ER?  In my definition, fluency would naturally include comprehension as one can't really 'read' fast without it.

                                                Rob Waring
                                                waring.rob@...
                                                www.ER-Central.com   Check it out!


                                                On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Glen Hill <glenahill@...> wrote:

                                                 

                                                Hi, Rob,
                                                Is it really fair to use speed (fast reading = fluent reading) to label ER? I would hesitate to do so.
                                                Glenski




                                                --

                                                Mark Brierley
                                                School of General Education
                                                Shinshu University
                                                Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                                +81 263 37-2923
                                                mobile 090 4464 6391

                                                --

                                                My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                                http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/










                                                --

                                                Mark Brierley
                                                School of General Education
                                                Shinshu University
                                                Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                                +81 263 37-2923
                                                mobile 090 4464 6391

                                                --

                                                My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                                http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/










                                                --

                                                Mark Brierley
                                                School of General Education
                                                Shinshu University
                                                Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
                                                +81 263 37-2923
                                                mobile 090 4464 6391

                                                --

                                                My blog about building a plus-energy house in Japan:
                                                http://minuszeroeco.blogspot.com/




                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.