Keshia S. Edwards

Comprehensive Exam Question Part 2

Fluency: Importance, Instruction, Assessment

Aaron Tuck, Amy Debord, Destiny Sizemore, Jamie Royall, & Keshia Edwards

Introduction:

I decided to research fluency because when I first started teaching I did not include it as part of my instruction or assessment. Now that I have been through the ASU reading program I have learned how to include it in my classroom. The more that I work with the ASU reading model I see how fluency effects a student’s ability to read and understand. I wanted to know more about fluency and have the knowledge I needed to support my reasons for including it in my reading instruction and assessment. The National Reading Panel in 2000 included fluency as one of the five pillars of reading. Also there has been a focus on fluency in the reading field and I felt that I needed to learn more about the research behind fluency instruction and assessment.

Jamie’s Summaries-

Kuhn, M., (2005). A Comparative Study of Small Group Fluency Instruction. Reading Psychology. 26, 127-146.

“With the inclusion of fluency in the National Reading Panel (2000) report, fluent reading can no longer be considered a neglected area of reading development” (Allington, 1983a). Kuhn and Stahl (2003) found only a few studies that focused on fluency development in a small group setting or classroom context. “Given the structure of most classrooms, it is important to identify effective approaches for developing fluency as part of the wider literacy curriculum” (p.127). The study looked at in this article investigates the reading development of small groups of learners making the transition from intentional decoding to fluent reading. The study focused on the effectiveness of repeated and wide reading as a means of developing reading fluency.

Researchers agree that three components need to combine to create fluent reading. These components include: accuracy of decoding, automaticity of word recognition and the appropriate use of prosodic features such as stress, pitch and suitable phrasing. Fluent reading is more than just reading words accurately and automatically. Because most people accept the ultimate goal of reading is the construction of meaning it is important to consider the ways in which fluency may contribute to reading comprehension (p.128). There are two main theories regarding this role. The first theory, the automaticity theory, argues that “individuals have a limited amount of attention available for any given cognitive task, including the task of reading (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). As a result, the more attention an individual spends on decoding, the less that remains available for comprehension” (Adams, 1990; Stanovich, 1984). A reader must shift from deliberate or intentional decoding to automatic word recognition in order to construct meaning from a text. The question remains, how is this shift made? Automaticity theorists believe that this shift occurs through practice of successive exposures to print (Adams, 1990; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Stanovich, 1984). Because of repeated exposure to the orthographic patterns in words, learners are able to recognize words with increasing automaticity and accuracy.

The second theory deals with prosody’s role in written language. The first theory does not account for prosody. “Prosody is comprised of a series of features including pitch or intonation, stress or emphasis, tempo or rate, and the rhythmic or regularly reoccurring patterns of language” (Hanks, 1990; Harris & Hodges, 1981, 1995). Poor readers are not as prosodic in their reading or with their use of appropriate phrasing as are good readers. Studies indicate that when text is presented in a manner comparable to speech, poor readers demonstrate improved comprehension. This means it has been organized into appropriate phrase units for the reader. “And, if prosodic readers are better able to comprehend text, it seems reasonable to assert that fluent readers are better able to construct meaning from text than are disfluent readers” (p.129).

The study was developed to assess the relative effectiveness of repeated and non-repetitive readings for students in small group settings. There was also a listening only condition, where students listened to an expressive rendering of the texts that the other students were reading (p.131). “That acted as a control for the Hawthorne effect, and a control condition in which students did not participate in any additional literacy activities beyond those taking place in their classrooms” (p.131).

The participants in this study were second graders who were in the process of making the transition from intentional decoding to fluent reading. They were at a low-to-middle-SES public school (60% free lunch). Three second grade classrooms participated and six students from each classroom who were identified by their teacher as disfluent were chosen to participate in the intervention conditions. “The evaluations of the students’ fluency were confirmed by their scores on the QRI (Leslie & Caldwell, 1988) and QRI-II (leslie & Caldwell, 1995) and an assessment of their oral reading using the NAEP Oral Reading Fluency Scale (U.S. Department of Education, 1995; see also Pinnell et al., 1995). In addition to the instructional components, two students from each class were assigned to the control group” (p.132). These students were assessed with the same measures but did not receive any extra literacy instruction besides what was occurring in their regular classroom.

“A series of texts ranging from the late first through the second grade instructional level, according to Fountas and Pinnell (1999) or the FEP/Booksource (1998), were selected for the intervention components” (p.134). Students were presented with a range of texts, including some passages at the upper end of their instructional level. This was designed to promote growth in what (Vygotosky, 1978) referred to as the zone of proximal development, which is where learners can achieve with assistance what they are unable to accomplish on their own. There were six texts used at the late first grade / early second grade level for the instructional intervention that incorporated repeated readings. “This was the equivalent of introducing one new text per week” (p. 134). Twelve texts were available for the Non-Repetitive reading condition which allowed a new text to be presented at every session. Each student in the two instructional conditions was provided with a copy of the texts they were required to read. The students in the Listening-Only control group were not provided with a copy of the texts. The stories were read to them instead. “The instructional treatment involved 18 sessions with each session lasting 15-20 minutes per day three times per week for six weeks” (p.134). Time was also set aside for pre- and posttesting of the participants. The repeated reading group focused on a lesson modeled after the Oral Fluency Lesson (Hoffman & Crone, 1985), the Support Reading Strategy (Morris & Nelson, 1992) and the Fluency Development Lesson (Rasinski, Padak, Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994). This occurred over a 3 day cycle. On day one the story was introduced by echo reading the text with the students. On day two, the students broke into pairs and reread the entire text with a partner, each of them reading alternate pages. On day three, students participated in a final choral reading of the text and were invited to perform a portion of the selection they had practiced before the group. The Non-Repetitive reading condition incorporated the choral and echo reading of a given text but was given a different text at each session. The same six books that were used in the repeated reading condition were used but twelve additional selections were also used to ensure that a different text was available at each session. The Listening Only condition consisted of the researcher expressively reading the stories aloud to the students. These students were exposed to the same 18 books that the students in the Non-Repetitive group were exposed to. Students in the control group simply took part in the initial and final assessment. They did not participate in any extra literacy instruction outside their normal classroom.

Differences in results between groups were substantive. “Students in the Repeated Reading and Non-Repetitive Reading conditions made greater gains in terms of the number of words read in isolation than did those in the listening-only or control conditions” (Torgesen et al., 1999). “Next, two raters independently assessed the students’ oral reading of the QRI passages. The students in the repeated reading and non-repetitive reading groups demonstrated greater growth in terms of the number of correct words per minute at their instructional levels than did either the students in the listening-only group or the controls” (Leslie & Caldwell, 1988, 1995). Both raters agreed that the students in the repeated reading and non-repetitive reading groups were more fluent than that of the students in the listening-only and control conditions.

“The results indicate that, in terms of word recognition in isolation, as well as prosodic reading and cwpm in context, the Non-Repetitive (wide) Reading conditions demonstrated greater gains than the Control or Listening-Only group. Further, there was greater growth in terms of comprehension scores only for the wide reading group” (p.139). One possible explanation for these findings is based on the nature of the intervention itself. The primary goal of this intervention was to aid the development of fluency in terms of accuracy, automaticity, and prosody either through the echo or choral reading of a new text or through the rereading of a familiar one. “As a result, students in these two groups may have differing conceptualizations of what reading in the sessions entailed” (p.139).

Allington, R.L., (1983). Fluency: The Neglected Reading Goal, The Reading Teacher, 36 (6), pp.556-561

Throughout this article Richard Allington explains some hypothesis on how beginning readers develop oral fluency and strategies to help readers who do not. Allington takes a close look at several researchers’ beliefs about fluency throughout the article.

Allington agrees with the other researchers in saying “we see that oral fluency is regarded as a necessary feature in defining good reading” (p.556). This makes Allington ask the question “Why hasn’t oral fluency become a major focus of beginning reading or early remedial instruction” (p.556)? Allington states Samuel’s (1979) argument that a nonfluent reader is “nonautomatic in decoding” which results in reading without expression. Because this interpretation is accepted by teachers it often leads to further instruction in letters, sounds, or words in isolation, believing that more attention to this area will result in improved reading.

Allington believes that when children are learning to understand speech they rely heavily on the prosodic features that mark meaningful units. They actually learn to produce some prosodic features of language before they learn to produce words (p.557). “Infants use intonation to signal query, labeling, surprise, anger and other expressions before they produce clearly articulated and well-formed sentences” (p.557). Schreiber (1980) notes that because children rely on the use of prosodic features to understand language aurally, they may have difficulty moving from accurate word recognition to fluent oral reading because of the absence of “signals in the written version that correspond to prosodic cues” (p.557).

Allignton states “If this transition is difficult, what explains the fact that second graders can parse written sentences into phrases, even though they receive little explicit instruction in such behavior”(p.557)? Allington has developed several reasonable hypotheses to answer this question. In hypothesis one Allington states that children with a varied background of reading experiences understand that fluent reading is the ultimate goal. We know that children who have been read to by their parents have an advantage when learning to read. So, perhaps the modeling of fluent oral reading teaches children to use the unmarked prosodic features.

Hypothesis two states that successful beginning readers receive more encouragement to “read with expression.” Slow first grade readers too often receive large doses of letter, sound, and word instruction, neglecting the larger units of text like sentences and stories. To develop the “automaticity” in poorer readers teachers focus their instruction on the smallest textual units and they direct attention to these text features when poorer students are reading (p.558). The good readers are more likely to get “meaning oriented” instruction and have their attention focused on “making sense” when reading orally.

Hypothesis three states that “fast learners are given greater opportunities for reading, so they moved more rapidly through the transition to fluency” (p.558). It has been documented that there is a large difference in the amount of contextual reading that is assigned to high and low reading groups. “Perhaps these greater amounts facilitate acquisition of the ability to parse sentences into phrases and to read orally with appropriate prosody” (p.558).

Hypothesis four suggests that high readers are reading material too easy for them a majority of the time, therefore facilitating the transition to fluent reading. “Several investigators have reported that poorer readers are more often working with material that is too difficult for them (Gambrell, Wilson, and Gantt, 1981; Jorgenson, 1977; Rubin, 1975; Weinstein, 1976). When a child reads material that is too difficult for them it may limit their apprehension of appropriate grammatical junctures and other prosodic cues.

Hypothesis five suggests silent reading provides practice for acquiring the ability to parse sentences in phrases. During silent reading children can reread sentences in an attempt to understand phrases and experiment with intonation, juncture, and stress. The higher readers have an advantage here again because greater amounts of silent reading are assigned to them.

Hypothesis six suggests because children develop different theories about reading their performances will be different. “Poor readers may view reading as more of an accuracy competition than a meaning-getting

exercise; further, they may view it as an activity done to please someone else (Durkin, 1981) and consequently not develop their own response to the activity” (p.559).

“The articles by Allington (1977, in press), Anderson (1980), Chomsky (1978), Cunningham (1979), and Samuels (1979) all contain suggested techniques ranging from repeated readings, read-along, teacher modeling, modified cloze, or greater amounts of silent reading, to reduced teacher monitoring and verbal correction of errors” (p.560). “Developing oral reading fluency is a small step in developing effective and efficient readers, but it is a step in the right direction” (p.561).

Schreiber, P. A. (1980) On the Acquisition of Reading Fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior, XII(3) 177-186

Throughout the article Schreiber references Samuels and Fries studies about fluency and what is involved to develop a fluent reader. He neither disagrees nor agrees completely with either of the researchers. He takes examples from both to develop his own theory of fluency.

Schreiber argues that the acquisition of fluent reading competence crucially involves the reader’s tacit recognition that he or she must learn to compensate for the absence of prosodic cues in the written signal by making use (or better use) of the cues that are preserved (p. 178).

Samuels’ method requires the student to read and reread a short passage several times until the child reads it with fluency. He repeats this same process with a new passage. Samuels gives evidence that shows an improvement in both accuracy and rate. Samuels believes that this will also increase a student’s comprehension due to the increase in accuracy and rate. Samuels’ method is based on the theory of automatic information processing. This theory claims that a “fluent reader decodes automatically-that is, without attention-thus leaving attention free to be used for comprehension” (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Samuel also believes that at the level of automaticity the reader “should be able to comprehend while reading aloud” (p.179)

Schreiber argues that Samuels’ theoretical position general and compatible with a wide range of more specific views. Samuel leaves a few things unanswered. “Why does the method facilitate movement from the accuracy stage to the automaticity stage and what features of Samuels’ theory would predict that the method of repeated readings will lead to fluency” (p. 179)? Samuels leaves out what specific skills are acquired by the student after performing repeated readings.

Schreiber suggests that for young children, prosodic features (intonation, stress, and especially duration) are particularly important signals of the syntactic structure of spoken utterances (p. 180). This would predict that punctuation does not divide sentences into phrases as clearly and as systematically as prosody does for spoken sentences. This also questions Samuels’ level two reader’s ability to put together meaningful related phrases that they can decode and comprehend in the form of a sentence spoken or read aloud.

Beginning readers can be taught the correspondence between letters and sounds. Although there are some irregularities in English orthography at least there is some consistency. However, there is no consistency between features of conversation and graphic features. Most teachers are unaware of the problem students have with reading with expression. The teacher doesn’t realize that the student doesn’t understand what is expected when asked to “read with expression.”

Scheiber believes that “the explanation for the success of the method of repeated readings therefore probably lies not so much in the notion of exercising some skill, nor in the reinforcement of behaviors that are not present to begin with; rather, it arises from the observation that what one must do in order to attain fluency in reading is to compensate for the absence of prosodic marking in identifying syntactic phrases” (p182). Scheiber believes that when a beginning reader (Samuels stage 2) understands the purpose of reading is to make meaning of the written words, as they read and reread they will begin to recognize the syntactic phrasing that is needed to make meaning. As a student does repeated readings of a given passage they begin to break the code and make better use of signals other than prosody. They learn to use function words, inflectional endings, and other morphological signals.

Although it is still unclear what parts of repeated readings are responsible for comprehension improvement, Schreiber still believes that “the crucial first step between stage two and three comes with the tacit discovery that parsing strategies other than those which rely on prosody or its somewhat haphazard graphic analogues are required in order to read with sense (p.183). Furthermore, Schreiber also feels that if a teacher reads aloud the text first that the student will perform better on the repeated readings because they will know what is expected.

Therrien, W., & Kumba, R. (2007). The Importance of Context In Repeated Reading. Reading Improvement. 44, 179-188.

“Research indicates that repeated reading improves students’ reading fluency. Two theoretical rationales, automatic word processing and the contextual linguistic effect, explaining repeated reading’s effectiveness have been advanced in the literature but have yet to be empirically validated” (p.179). In this article Therrien and Kubina are looking at a study where the purpose is to ascertain if practice with connected text is a critical component of repeated reading for fluency improvement.

According to the theory of automatic word processing, the practice of repeated reading is effective because of improved word recognition skills. Laberge and Samuels (1974) theorized “that fluency problems stem from readers’ poor decoding skills” (p.179). When decoding is too slow, comprehension is also affected. Repeated reading improves word recognition and decoding skills because students are exposed to the same words numerous times. As students become proficient reading the words, there is a shift of attention from decoding to comprehension which improves the student’s understanding of the text. Rashotte and Torgesen (1985) provided direct support for this theory by varying the material used within a repeated reading. They found that students made significant gains in reading fluency when the passages used in the intervention shared a “high degree of word overlap” (p. 179). The students in the control group did not make significant gains in reading fluency. Students in the high word overlap condition achieved significantly higher reading speeds. Rashotte and Torgesen concluded from this “that reading fluency increases obtained through repeated reading were a result of improved word recognition skills” (p.180).

The second explanation for the effectiveness of repeated readings is that it allows students to move beyond just word reading to practice higher linguistic structures which is called “contextualized linguistic effect” (Logan, 1997). According to this effect, each time a student re-reads a passage they gain fluency with word recognition, they become more familiar with word combinations in the passage, it increases their background knowledge, they learn the prosodic nuances in the passage, and they comprehend the passage as a whole. “The power of repeated reading, apparently, is not just exposing students to words they do not know, but providing this exposure within connected text passages” (p.180).

A study was done to see if repeated reading improves a variety of reading skills or if it only improved word recognition. “If repeated reading only improves word recognition and this improvement is not enhanced by re-reading connected to text passages, then other instructional techniques, such as reading words in isolation, are likely to be as effective as, and perhaps more efficient than, repeated reading. If, however, repeated reading improves a variety of reading skills and/or if providing word recognition practice within a connected text passage is superior to other instructional approaches, then repeated reading is most likely a valuable intervention for some students” (p.180).

For the study students served as their own controls in a two by two design. There were two types of training materials- contextual and acontextual words. They were either given contextual words followed by acontextual words or acontextual words followed by contextual words. The contextual word condition required higher linguistic processing because students read connected text. The acontextual word condition did not require higher linguistic processing for the students because they read words from the connected text paragraph with the words presented in a randomized order. After training, a transfer task was administered. These materials consisted of novel prose passages that contained a high number of words used in the treatment conditions. The number of word errors on the first reading and the number of readings required to meet criterion were recorded in each training condition. The number of errors on the transfer passages and number of correct words per minute were also collected.

Students who participated in the study were selected by their teacher from third, fourth or fifth grade and were reading below grade level. Students were then screened using the “Ekwall/Shanker Reading Inventory” (2000) word list to determine their reading level. “Students who read at least one grade level below their current placement, but between a second and fourth grade instructional reading level, were selected as participants in the study” (p.181).

Materials used for the study included the Ekwall Reading Inventory, two first grade passages, and two transfer passages. The ERI was used to determine students’ instructional reading level. It consisted of graded word lists. The two first grade passages consisted of seventy words and were used for easy practice material. The two transfer passages consisted of one hundred fifty five words and one hundred seventy six words. There were eight possible passage combinations. Two students were randomly assigned to each combination.

The study was conducted in twelve steps. During the first step the Ekwall Reading Inventory was administered. Students who read at least one grade level below their current placement but between a second and fourth grade instructional reading level were selected to continue. In step two students were randomly assigned to begin in condition 1 which consisted of the passage sequence A, B, C or D or condition 2 which consisted of passages E, F, G or H. In step three students were encouraged to read the easy passages as quickly and accurately as possible. During step four students repeatedly read the easy passage aloud until they reached a rate of ninety three correct words per minute. At step five students were given a cue to read the experimental passage (condition 1) or words out of context (condition 2) quickly and accurately. During step six students in condition 1 repeatedly read the words in context aloud and students in condition 2 repeatedly read the randomized words aloud until they reached a rate of ninety three correct words per minute or the passage/words were read six times. After each reading but prior to the re-reading students were provided with and asked to repeat the correct pronunciation of any mispronounced or omitted words during the reading. During step seven the transfer passage was administered. Students were cued to read the transfer passage as quickly and accurately as possible. In steps eight through twelve students’ switched conditions and steps three through seven were repeated. The students worked with the experimenter a total of three school days. Pre-testing occurred during day one. Steps three through seven occurred during day two and steps eight through twelve during day three.

“This study demonstrated that repeated reading improves word recognition during practice. Additionally, this study demonstrated the superiority of reading connected text in a repeated reading intervention over reading words out of context, thereby providing tentative support for the contextualized linguistic effect” (p.186).

Keshia’s Summaries:

Bashir, A. S., Hook, P. E., (2009) Fluency: A Key Link Between Word Identification and Comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, pg. 196-200

Bashir and Hook emphasize the complexity of the reading process and the importance of reading fluency. Fluency incorporates automatic word recall and plays and important role in reading comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). Therefore fluency is a key link between word recognition and comprehension (p. 196).

Reading is a complex process that can be difficult for everyone at times. We all have read something that we have to slow down or reread to make meaning. When we come across words we’ve never seen before we try to use context clues to make meaning. Sometimes we think we know the word but as we continue reading we find that we don’t understand the meaning of the word that the author was using. Long sentences are sometimes difficult, especially when the vocabulary is not familiar to the reader. Fluency can be disrupted by any of these factors and our comprehension may also suffer because of this. “Word identification as well as the linguistic and cognitive requirements are essential for fluent reading and comprehension of the text” (p. 197).

“Fluent reading of the passage results from the integration of decoding, naming speed, orthographic pattern recognition and also integrates language knowledge of a morphological, syntactic, and semantic nature” (Adams, 1990; Berninger, Abbott, Billingsley, & Nagy, 2001; Katzir et al., 2006; Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). This quote is about the Ghriardi passage included in the article. I included it because I feel this is also true when reading other passages/texts. “The knowledge of content and the vocabulary acquired through learning about content are fundamental to successful comprehension” (p. 197). There are many factors that make fluency challenging. There are students who have little word knowledge, labored word calling, and no fluency. Some may have word knowledge but have no automaticity and this interferes with their fluency. These students also have trouble with comprehension. Another factor that influences fluency is background knowledge of the content being read. When a student lacks these experiences they can’t read with fluency and comprehension.

“There is an extensive evidence base for developing reading fluency” (Allington, 1983; National Reading Panel, 2000) Meyer and Felton described fluency as “the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanisms of reading such as decoding” (p.197). It is also noted that fluency also includes appropriate stress, intonation, and prosodic features (Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2001).

“The development of reading fluency depends on the interaction of multiple factors that include but are not limited to the following: phonological awareness, visual perception, orthographic representation, speed of lexical access and retrieval, and higher level language and conceptual knowledge” (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). Fluency gradually develops over time and we should teach the skills necessary from the very beginning of reading. It is these skills learned early that are used later to develop fluency. Beginning readers may read slow and appear labored. As they begin to use meaningful phrasing and appropriate prosody they can then shift “gears” to comprehend the text read.

Reading fluency is crucial for students to move their attention and focus from decoding and to making meaning of the words they read. Fluency and comprehension are linked. When students have to put all their focus into word attack skills they can’t attend to the story the author is telling. That is to say that when beginning readers direct most of their efforts toward word attack issues, we must help them increase their automaticity skills. This will allow them to focus on comprehension.

“The student cannot achieve reading fluency until he or she can recognize words accurately and effortlessly. To do this, the student needs both phonological and orthographic knowledge as well as sufficient language and conceptual knowledge” (Kame’enui et., 2001). As a teacher we should practice these skills with our students so that they become automatic. As we teach these skills we should also put an equal amount of focus on word meaning. “Comprehension can facilitate fluent word recognition” (p. 199). Repeated readings are an effective strategy to help improve reading fluency. Prosody is also improved as a student does repeated readings. Improving fluency is not always easy though. As readers get older improving fluency becomes more difficult. “Preventive interventions were found to produce better outcomes for fluency than did remediation interventions” (Torgeson, Alexander, et al., 2001). We need to intervene early and remediate immediately once a problem with fluency is identified to increase a student’s chance to develop fluency.

In conclusion Bashir and Hook believe fluency instruction must be integrated in to all areas of teaching reading. “We need to recognize the importance of cognitive and linguistic abilities as well as motivational and affective factors required for the development of reading fluency and comprehension. If we are to assist students to read and understand what they have read, our work must develop fluency as well as build prior knowledge, facilitate the underpinnings of word recognition, develop linguistic knowledge and access to different text genre, facilitate verbal reasoning, and teach strategies for comprehension” (p. 199).

Allington, R.L., (2006). What Research Has To Say About Fluency Instruction. Fluency: Still Waiting After All These Years, Ch. 5 p. 94-105

Richard Allington believes that fluency is reading in phrases, with appropriate intonation and prosody—fluency is reading with expression (p.94). Allington does not believe Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is true measure of fluency. “It is not that reading rate, or word-reading efficiency, are unimportant, but that is something different from reading fluency” (Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn, Wisenbaker, & Stahl, 2004).

Allington references Schwanenflugel’s study to argue that struggling readers should not be practicing DIBELS or speeded reading of non-word list because it does not improve text reading performances. Allington also argues that DIBELS is not a good indicator of reading levels because Carlisle, Schilling, Scott, and Zeng (2004) found that about half of the second and third graders who were predicted to be reading on level in the spring, based on fall DIBELS performances, were actually performing below the 50th percentile on the Iowa Test basic Skills(ITBS) Total Reading in the spring (p. 95) DIBELS may do a good job measuring word-reading efficiency, and rate but DIBELS does not tell you if your students comprehend what is read.

Allington gives a reasonable argument that word-by-word reading is a learned behavior due to a specific type of instruction. Research shows that lower achieving students read aloud more often then students who read well. Also lower achieving students are interrupted more frequently when they misread a word, often told to sound it out, have their attention focused on accuracy rather than comprehension, and often pause while reading to wait on the teacher to give them the word. Allington describes the word-by-word reading as a learned behavior, a “checking the traffic” response (Allington, 2006). Allington says that struggling readers begin to anticipate the interruptions and therefore read word-by-word. He suggests that this hesitation is a trained behavior and not an indication of any skills deficit in particular (p. 97).

Allington’s solution to this problem is to give those struggling readers instruction more like the instruction given to better readers. He believes the most important thing to do is make sure all students are reading at the appropriate level. They should be given opportunities to read silently and self select text that they find interesting. When struggling readers are reading aloud with the teacher the teacher should try to cut down on the interruptions and focus the student on self monitoring and understanding of what was read.

Often struggling readers are placed in texts that are too difficult. Allington believes they need more practice in high success texts. “High success reading experiences are characterized by accurate, fluent reading with good understanding of the text that was read” (p. 98). Allington makes a very interesting point about there being no research testing the hypothesis that a steady diet of too-hard texts fosters dysfluency because it would violate the eithical principal of “Knowingly do no harm” (p.98). He says that providing children access to with appropriately leveled texts and a noninteruptive reading environment typically produces profound changes in reading fluency and self monitoring.

Allington believes fluency is important but many students who are dysfluent are products of poorly designed instructional environments. Students need to read on the appropriate level in all environments including during interventions. All students need the opportunity to read texts at the appropriate level and receive instruction that is not interrupted.

Carver, P. R., (1992). Reading rate: Theory, research, and practical implications. Journal of Reading, 36(2),84-95

“During the past 100 years, there has been a great deal of research on reading rate[see Carver 1990]. Until recently, however, reading rate was considered to vary with so many factors that it was not predictable in any particular situation” (p. 84). Carver found that reading rate can be predicted with accuracy using a relatively new theory called “rauding theory” (Carver 1984, 1990). “The rauding process involves sentence comprehension and requires the components of lexical access, semantic encoding, and sentential integration” (p. 88). This is where natural reading and comprehension occurs.

Carver set out to find the rate at which the rauding process takes place, for college students, when the purpose is to understand the thoughts that the writer intended to communicate. He designed a study where he forced college students to read at rates faster and slower than 300 wpm by using motion picture films. Two lines of the text appeared on the screen at one time. As the first line faded away the new one was added below simultaneously. He manipulated the rate from 83 wpm to 500 wpm. He measured comprehension on these passages three different ways; multiple choice test based upon paraphrases of the sentences in the passage, multiple choice test based on recall for the words in the text, and a judgment of the readers themselves of their percentage of comprehension. “The efficiency [E] of reading was calculated from the product of accuracy [A] and rate [R], i.e., E=AR (see Carver, 1990).

Materials for this study consisted of a wide range of passages at four grade levels of difficulty-5, 8, 11, and 14. The passages were both read to them and presented visually using film. The passages read aloud were time compressed to provide auding rates of 85-500 wpm.

Results revealed that when college students were forced to read at rates faster than 300 wpm they were less efficient and when they were forced to read slower than 300 wpm they were also less efficient. “This research finding supports the notion that (a) students have a certain fastest rate for accurately comprehending the sentences in passages, called their rauding rate, R., and (b) students normally read at their rauding rate because it is their most efficient rate for comprehending the complete thoughts in sentences” (p. 88). Even when students read material that was college level or elementary level the rauding rate did not vary from 300 wpm. These same results were found when the passages were read aloud to college students. No matter the difficulty of the material, or the method used to measure comprehension, and no matter whether the students are reading or listening the research proved the most efficient rate was 300 wpm.

“It seems reasonable to contend that college students have learned to operate their rauding process at their rauding rate because their rauding rate is the rate at which they can comprehend the complete thoughts in sentences most efficiently” (p.89). This is important because when students go faster than their cognitive speed they can no longer operate the three primary components of the rauding process. Cognitive speed increases each year due to maturation starting in second grade at 121 wpm to 241 wpm in grade twelve (table 2 p. 91). There is variability between individuals within each grade. Rauding rate of individuals are limited by their own cognitive speed.

When you are reading easy material you are practicing the rauding process and shifting to a lower gear indicates the material is difficult and you need to slow down to understand what you have read. Also readers can shift to a higher gear if they looking for a specific word or phrase. This higher gear is comparable to skimming or scanning. Results from this study indicate that, “The best readers probably are those who demonstrate process flexibility by shifting up or down from the rauding process whenever their goals can be achieved most effectively by a different reading process” (p. 94).

Carver, P. R., (2000). The Causal Model, Accuracy Level, Rate Level. The Causes of High and Low Reading Acheivement, ch. 1, 4, & 5, p. 3-23, p. 61-74, p. 75-89

Carver presents the main factors that attribute to high and low reading achievement. He organized these factors into a causal model where the focal point is reading achievement. In this model Carver breaks down each part needed to achieve reading efficiency and then breaks down each element further to explain what is needed to achieve the element. Carver’s causal model is his theory of reading and what is included to achieve reading efficiency.

One of the primary causes for efficiency level is the rauding accuracy level. Rauding accuracy level is defined as the most difficult text a student can accurately read when reading at the student’s normal reading rate. There are two factors that are involved with the accuracy level.

The first factor is the students’ verbal knowledge. Carver refers to verbal knowledge as a students’ overall knowledge including general knowledge, their word knowledge, world knowledge, verbal knowledge, and their listening capacity. All of these elements affect students’ reading levels. If we want to improve accuracy we must improve a students’ verbal knowledge. We can do this by exposing students to rich vocabulary in read alouds, through language experience activities, and non-fiction research activities.

The second factor in improving the accuracy level is the students’ pronunciation knowledge. Carver says that the number of words students can pronounce correctly is their pronunciation knowledge and to improve this they must be taught decoding skills. The ability to decode words has a major impact on students’ reading level (ch. 1, p. 8).

Carver believes that verbal knowledge and pronunciation knowledge are the two proximal causes of high and low accuracy level. He says if you want to improve students’ accuracy level you must improve students’ verbal and pronunciation level first.

Another primary cause of gain in efficiency level is a gain in rate level. A high rate level is necessary for high reading achievement. Rauding rate level is based on rauding rate. Rauding rate is simply the fastest rate an individual can read appropriate level material and still comprehend accurately (ch. 5, p. 76).

There are two primary factors that influence students’ rate levels. The first factor is the pronunciation level. The better students can decode words the faster they will call them when reading. Carver believes that this pronunciation level is very important because it impacts both accuracy and rate; therefore impacting students’ reading efficiency.

The second factor to impact a students’ rate level is cognitive speed. Cognitive speed is an individual’s thinking rate or naming speed. “It is theorized that cognitive speed level cannot be improved by instruction or learning; cognitive speed level can only be improved via maturation, or increases due to the passage of time during the school year” (ch. 1, p. 10).

Carver believes the most effective way to improve reading achievement during a school year is to concentrate on providing the best instruction for increasing verbal level and the best instruction for pronunciation level.

(Carver’s Causal Model for Reading Achievement) (Cognitive Speed Aptitude) (Pronunciation Aptitude) (Verbal Aptitude) (Age) (Teach/Learn) (Teach/Learn) (Cognitive Speed Level) (Pronunciation Knowledge Level ) (Verbal Knowledge Level) (Rate Level ) (Accuracy Level) (Reading Efficiency)

Aaron’s Summaries:

Fawson, F., Jones, C., Reutzel, D., & Smith, J. (2008). Scaffolded silent reading: A complement to guided repeated oral reading that works!. The Reading Teacher. 62, 194-207.

Sustained Silent Reading or SSR has raised concerns and criticisms due to “absence of teacher and student interactions around the reading of texts” and “the lack of teacher monitoring and accountability for whether or not students are actually reading during SSR time” (Stahl, 2004). However, Hiebert (2006) “asserted that fluency practice must, at some point, provide opportunities for transferring students’ oral reading skills to silent reading”.

In 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP) and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) did not find sufficient evidence to support the continued use of SSR. In lieu of this, one elementary principal announced that teachers were to stop using SSR and instead have students practice reading by using guided oral repeated reading with feedback. A third grade teacher, Mrs. Traverski, and her colleagues expressed concerns to a university literacy researcher and teacher educator. Together, the group redesigned SSR.

Scaffolded Silent Reading or ScSR redesigns SSR, yet still maintains the goal of moving oral reading fluency to silent reading practice (Worthy & Broadus, 2002). In ScSR, teachers teach students strategies to select books at the appropriate difficulty levels. Teachers also guide students’ choices by structuring their reading selections to include a wide variety of genres. ScSR also adds the specific goals of increasing students’ reading fluency and comprehension as well as their engagement with text. ScSR differs from SSR in that teachers monitor students during practice through individual reading conferences in which students read aloud, discuss the book, answer questions, and set goals for completing the book.

In Mrs. Traverski’s third grade class, she guides students’ book selection by placing books of differing levels on clearly labeled shelves or in plastic bins. Books are marked by a color code representing each student’s independent reading level. Students are expected to read a minimum of 5 books per genre each nine weeks of the year across 9 genres (fantasy, folktales, fables, adventure, science fiction, humor, sports, mystery, biography, historical fiction, autobiography, and poetry). She begins the year by teaching book selection strategies. Each day ScSR begins with a 5-8 minute explanation and modeling of an aspect or element of fluent reading or how to use a comprehension strategy. Students have 20 minutes of practice reading per day. During this time Mrs. Traverski meets with 4-5 students per day to ensure her students are engaged and accountable. During this conference, the student reads aloud 1-2 minutes, discusses the book to check for comprehension. The student will also think about and choose how they will share what the book is about from a display of book response projects.

To determine whether or not ScSR was as effective as the type of reading practice recommended by the NRP (NICHD, 2000) called Guided Repeated Oral Reading with feedback (GROR), the researchers (Fawson et al, 2008) conducted a year long study with 4 third grade classrooms. Students were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions: ScSR with monitoring and wide reading of different genres at student’ independent reading levels or GROR of grade-level texts with feedback from teachers and peers. All four teachers taught both conditions on a rotating basis throughout the year.

Students read 2 pre and 2 posttest passages from the third grade Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELS) oral reading fluency. One minute reading samples were scored for accuracy and reading rate. Reading expression in the one minute samples was evaluated with the Multidimensional Fluency Scale using 4 subscales: phrasing, smoothness, pacing, and volume (Zutell & Rasinski, 1991). Student oral retellings of the 4 third grade passages were used to assess comprehension.

No significant differences in the pre- to posttest gain scores made between the ScSR or GROR groups at the end of the yearlong experiment on any of the outcome measures of accuracy, rate, or comprehension. The one exception was the ScSR group’s gains in expression for one of the DIBELS passages. Students in the ScSR experimental group made progress equivalent to students in the scientifically validated comparison reading practice condition of GROR as recommended by the NRP (NICHD, 2000). When interviewed at the end of the year, students in both groups were able to more clearly articulate what good reading sounds like and how to achieve good reading. When asked to rate themselves as readers, “good” responses had moved from 30% in the fall to 71% in the spring for the ScSR group. GROR student “good” responses moved from 38% in the fall to 59% in the spring.

Results of this study show that ScSR provides third grade teachers access to an alternative for practicing reading that decreases errors and increases students’ reading rates, use of expression, and comprehension. ScSR represents a viable, complementary, and motivating approach that is comparable to the NRP-recommended reading practice of GROR.

Samuels, J. (1979). The Method of Repeated Readings. The Reading Teacher. 32, 403-408.

The method of repeated reading consists of rereading a short, meaningful passage several times until a satisfactory level of fluency is reached. Then, the procedure is repeated with a new passage. The researcher (Samuels, 1979) points out that repeated reading is not a method for teaching all beginning reading skills. Its main purpose is to build fluency.

In one study, the researcher (Samuels, 1979) had struggling readers select interesting easy stories. The 50-200 word selections from these stories were marked off for practice. The student read the passage to an assistant, who recorded the reading speed and number of word recognition errors on a graph. The procedure was repeated until 85 words per minute (wpm) rate was reached. Then, the student moved to a new passage. For this research, fluency was separated into two measurable components: accuracy of word recognition and reading speed. For purposes of building fluency, speed was emphasized.

The researcher (Samuels, 1979) found that as reading speed increased word recognition errors decreased. Additionally, as the student continued repeated readings, the initial speed of reading each new selection was faster than initial speed on the previous selection. Also, the number of rereadings required to reach the criterion reading speed decreased as the student continued the technique. The researcher (Samuels) found that students were excited by the gains they made in fluency and were motivated by graphing their progress.

The researcher also found that with each additional rereading the student is better able to comprehend because the decoding barrier to comprehension is gradually overcome.

The rereading method was based on the theory of automatic information processing in reading (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). According to automaticity theory, a fluent reader decodes text automatically, leaving attention free to be used for comprehension. The researchers (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974) traced development of word recognition skill through three levels: non-accurate stage (student has difficulty with word recognition), accuracy stage (student is accurate but attention is required—reading is slow and halting), and automatic stage (student is able to recognize printed words without attention—rate approximates speaking rate and with expression). To help students achieve automaticity in word recognition, teachers should give instruction on how to recognize words at the accuracy level and provide time and motivation so the students will practice word recognition skills until they become automatic.

In one study, in which third grade students read the same passage twice, students had 3.3% fewer errors on the second reading than the first (Gonzales & Elijah, 1975). Another empirical study of repeated readings (Dahl & Samuels, 1976) found that when repeated readings were used with poor readers of average intelligence in addition to regular instruction, significant gains were made in both comprehension and reading speed.

The theories and research presented in this article support the use of repeated readings to build fluency.

Gaffney, M., & Morris, D. (2011). Building reading fluency in a learning-disabled middle school reader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 54, 331-341.

Fluency is viewed as a central component of reading skill and one of the five instructional “pillars” or targets cited in the report of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). While experts still disagree about the precise definition of reading fluency, the practical implications are clear. After first grade, students need to read with sufficient speed and rhythm if they are to enjoy reading, concentrate on meaning, and complete reading assignments in a reasonable amount of time (Gaffney & Morris, 2011).

In this case study, Megan Gaffney, a young graduate student tutored Luke (pseudonym) during the summer, fall and spring of 2008-2009. The tutoring was supervised by Dr. Darrell Morris, the reading clinic director.

The researchers (Gaffney & Morris, 2011) determined, based on Luke’s Informal Reading Inventory (IRI), that Luke possessed a good sight vocabulary at third grade level and could decode at fourth grade level. He read with borderline accuracy at the third and fourth grade levels and had good comprehension. However, his oral reading rates at third and fourth grade were low and pointed to a significant deficit in reading fluency or speed. A one hour lesson plan was developed.

The lesson plan began with a check of Luke’s homework which was tape-recorder reading (Chomsky, 1976; Nelson & Morris, 1988). Each night Luke listened to a book chapter that had been audio-taped by his tutor. After listening to one page he reread that page aloud or silently. The next session, Luke read aloud from the beginning of the passage for 2 min. The tutor recorded the number of words read on a taped reading chart. The second part of the lesson was guided reading of an instructional leveled text. The tutor chose material Luke was interested in and partner read the chapter. The third part of the lesson was repeated reading (Morris, 2008; Samuels, 1979). The tutor used previously read guided reading passages. Luke read for 2 min. and the number of words read was graphed. Then, he reread the passage a second time and rates were charted. The following session, he would read the same passage and then a third and fourth time. Rates improved with each reading. In the last part of the lesson, the tutor read aloud to Luke. Each part of the lesson focused on fluent contextual reading at Luke’s third grade instructional level.

The researchers (Gaffney & Morris, 2011) examined Luke’s performance at the end of the year long tutoring. They found that with repeated readings, Luke made steady increases from the first to the fourth readings. There were increases when genre was changed from biography to narrative, as narrative text seemed to lend itself more to fluent reading. There were also decreases in Luke’s rates when text difficulty was increased. With Luke’s tape recorded readings, Luke’s rates decreased slightly as the text difficulty increased from early fourth grade, to late fourth, to mid fifth grade. Along with text difficulty, other factors were genre, topic, and the fact that Luke appeared to be less diligent in reading at home. When pre-test and post-test IRI scores are compared, Luke made gains in sight vocabulary, timed word recognition, and oral reading accuracy. Most notably, were gains in rate, which increased 27 words per minute (wpm) in third grade material and 23 wpm in fourth grade material.

Reading is a combination of print processing and comprehension (Barr, Blachowicz, Katz, & Kaufman, 2007; Hoover & Gough, 1990). Luke had strong comprehension but considerable difficulty with print processing. The researchers (Gaffney & Morris, 2011) attribute Luke’s gains to the guided, instructional-level reading lessons, and more specifically to the fluency-building activities (repeated readings and tape-recorder readings) that featured rereading of text.

The researchers examined why rereading passages leads to gains in fluency: sight vocabulary and phrasing. Repeated encounters with a printed word allow it to move from a functional to an autonomous lexicon (Perfetti, 1992). With growth in the reader’s sight vocabulary, contextual reading should be faster and more fluent. Additionally, chunking words into phrases promotes smooth cadenced print processing (Rasinski, 2006). To improve phrase reading, one researcher (Schrreiber, 1991) recommended the repeated reading and tape-recorder reading techniques.

The results of this case study showed that Luke’s gains in reading fluency can be attributed, in part, to his improved ability to read in phrases, an ability that was likely fostered by his participation in the repeated readings and tape-recorder reading activities.

Biggs, M., Homan, S., & Rasinki, T. (2009). Teaching reading fluency to struggling readers: method, materials, and evidence. Reading and Writing Quarterly. 25, 192-204.

In lieu of the Report of the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel, 2000) and other reviews of research on fluency (Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003), reading fluency has emerged as an important component in effective reading instruction. Research has found that measures of reading fluency are significantly associated with measures of reading comprehension (Rasinski, 2004). These reviews have also noted that reading fluency instruction results in improvements in students’ reading fluency and their overall reading achievement (Kuhn & Stahl, 2000; Raskinski & Hoffman, 2003).

Research has shown that when students orally practice a piece of text they improve their rate, accuracy and comprehension of that text (Samuels, 1979). As students move to new passages, their initial reading of those new pieces is done with higher levels of fluency and comprehension than the initial readings of the previous passage (Samuels, 1979). Other studies have shown that repeated readings are a valuable instructional tool for reading fluency and because fluency is related to text understanding, reading comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000; Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003).

Readers need to develop an internalized model of fluent reading (Rasinski et al, 2009). The best way to achieve this is to read to students regularly in a fluent manner, then direct students’ attention to how that reading was fluent (Rasinski et al, 2009).

Research has also shown that assisted reading can have a significantly positive effect on students’ fluency (Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003). In assisted reading, a student reads a passage while simultaneously listening to a fluent reading of the same text.

Teachers must also have fluency materials. For a listening center, the teacher needs books on tape. The researchers note that certain types of materials lend themselves to practice, and oral performance such as poetry, song lyrics, rhetoric, plays, and are most fitting for fluency instruction (Rasinski et al, 2009).

Rather than mundane repeated readings of dry passages, the researchers (Raskinski et al, 2009) believe teachers should find material that is meant to be performed and set up daily or weekly opportunities to perform. The performance of a passage makes the practice meaningful to students.

The researchers (Rasinski et al, 2009) recommend the following instructional routines which are aimed at developing fluency: Fluency Development Lesson (FDL), Fast Start, Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction (FORI), Reader’s Theater, and Singing as Reading.

In a FDL, the teacher models reading the text for students and gradually releases responsibility for reading the text from teacher to student for 10-15 minutes per day. Eventually, students perform the text and engage in word study and further practice at home (Rasinski, Padak, Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994). In a year long study, second graders struggling with fluency who did FDL regularly, made substantial progress in reading fluency and overall reading achievement when compared with their peers who were not engaged in FDL (Raskinski et al, 1994).

Fast Start, an adaptation of the FDL, is for use at home (Rasinski et al, 1994). Parents read a poem to their children several times with their children looking on, parents read the poem with their children aloud several times, and eventually have their children read the poem to them several times. A 12 week study showed the most at risk student engaged in Fast Start made significantly more progress in word recognition and fluency than students not doing Fast Track but receiving the same reading instruction in school (Rasinski & Stevenson, 2005).

FORI (Stahl & Heubach, 2005) incorporates repeated and partner reading. In FORI, a basal reading selection is read to students by the teacher and discussed. Students then read he story several times at home and at school. Students engage in worksheets and journal work related to the story. In a 2 year study in 14 second grade classrooms, researchers (Stahl & Heubach, 2005) found the average growth in reading achievement was approximately 1.8 years for each year of the study.

Griffith, a fourth grade teacher, implemented repeated readings through Readers Theater. Students practiced scripts nightly for 10 min. over the course of one week. On Fridays, students would rehearse and Griffith would coach and encourage, then students would perform for classmates and other classes. In 10 weeks of implementation, Griffith noted positive results in students reading achievement and in their interest in reading (Griffith and Rasinski, 2004).

Researchers (Biggs & Homan, 2008) employed singing to teach fluency by using Tune in to Reading software that provided instant feedback to each child after their reading for 30 min. 3 times per week. In 9 weeks, the treatment group gained more than a year and a half in overall reading achievement (Biggs & Homan, 2008).

The research in this article supports modeling fluent reading for students and providing students with repeated reading practice of written passages while at the same time providing assistance and coaching in the repeated readings. In addition, the research supports an authentic approach to teaching fluency which involves the use of materials that are meant to be read orally and performed for an audience.

Amy’s Summaries:

Therrien William J., Kubina, Richard M. Jr.(2006).Developing Reading Fluency With Repeated Reading Intervention in School and Clinic Vol. 41, No 3, pp. 156-160.

Researchers have discovered that reading is not a simple process but complex. Over the last several years research has been done and reports completed that have focused on the most effective strategies for teaching reading. For example, the National Reading Panel(2000) highlights the topics of phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, comprehension, computer technology, and reading fluency. Several others reviewed the literature and concluded that fluency bridges decoding and comprehension (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui & Traver, 2004) and is a better predictor of comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hosp, 2001).

Therrien and Kubina asked the question, How can teachers best provide fluency instruction for their students? After reviewing the work of Dahl 1977; Samuels, 1979; Adams, 1990; NRP, 2000; and Therrien, 2004 they marked repeated readings as one of the most effective strategies teachers can use to improve fluency.

Therrien and Kubina present four elements for teachers to consider when deciding whether or not to implement repeated reading and in what manner. The four elements are (1) determine if students have the necessary prerequisite skills (2) choose an appropriate format for the intervention (3) implement essential instructional components (4) select appropriate reading materials and obtain additional supplies.

When determining if the students have the necessary prerequisite skills the instructor must look at the students’ instructional level. Repeated reading is most beneficial for those reading between the first and third grade range. Teachers need to consider the stages of learning (Mercer and Mercer 2001) as they decide if this strategy will best meet their students’ needs. The goal is to aim at students in the acquisition and proficiency levels and help them develop fluency as a reading behavior.

According to Dowhower, 1987; O’Shea, 1987; Mercer, 2000; Rasikinski 1994 and several others repeated reading has been and can be effective when implemented properly by a variety of instructors including teachers, assistants, and peer tutors. Therrien and Kubina suggest that the repeated reading sessions are conducted 3 to 5 times a week for 10 to 20 minutes each session. These sessions can be done with one-to-one administration or as a whole class activity with peer tutors.

Having well trained tutors is vital to the effectiveness of the repeated reading strategy. Tutors must be trained and capable of giving effective and adequate feedback to the tutee. Performance criterion must be selected by the administrator and based on the abilities of the student. Adjustments should be made as needed according to the difficulty the tutee has reaching the goal.

There are three necessary items when using the repeated reading strategy: instructional-level reading materials (passages that can be read with 85% to 95% accuracy), a timer (to track the rate), and data tracking sheets. The tracking sheet allows the administrator and tutee to see the results and track progress.

Repeated reading is one answer to the call of needed fluency instruction (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; NRP, 200; Rasinski, 2000). Research shows that this technique is effective when used correctly with a variety of students including those with disabilities. Therrien and Kubina have clearly shown that teachers can easily implement repeated readings into their daily/weekly literacy instruction.

Marcell, Barclay 2011. Putting Fluency on a Fitness Plan; Building Fluency’s Meaning-Making Muscles. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 65, Issue 4, pp. 242-249.

Barclay Marcell is a literacy teacher at an elementary school in Illinois. He reviews several of the techniques suggested over the years to build fluency. Marcell challenges teachers to question their fluency practices and reflect of the practices we are using with our students.

Marcell suggests that teachers beef up their fluency plan by focusing on all of its’ multidimensional features: rate, expression, accuracy, and learning. It appears that over the years fluency practices have focused mainly on rate and accuracy. Somewhere along the way prosody and comprehension were forgotten. Marcell states that rate and accuracy are quantifiable while it is more difficult to chart prosody and comprehension.

The focus on speed and accuracy can hinder a reader. Students are sometimes falsely guided into thinking that reading is a race. Johns (2007) cautions that there will be unintended consequences of 1 minute fluency measurements. Samuels (2007) asked the question, “Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency?”. As Marcell points out, this is not what we want from our readers.

Rasinski and Hammon(2010) noted that the 50th national percentile numbers for rate increased between 2004-2009. However, the rate increase did not translate into an increase in overall reading performance. Marcell claims that the attention given to rate and accuracy has usurped prosody and comprehension.

The research community began to question the effectiveness of the fluency measures and instructional practices that were currently in being used. There was concern that fluency had become a speed reading contest. In 2010, Cassidy’s annual poll revealed that literacy leaders not longer considered fluency a “hot topic”. The work of Samuels and LaBerge (1974) that launched the theory of the need for automaticity in decoding (Automatic Information Processing Theory) for deeper brain functioning (comprehension) to occur was at risk of no longer being a “hot topic” in the literacy world. Unfortunately, this concern coupled with NCLB (No Child Left Behind) led to the creation of DIBELS. Pearson (2006) wrote, “DIBELS is the worst thing to happen to the teaching of reading since the development of flash cards”. DIBELS along with other fluency measures teach students bad reading habits.

Marcell asks the question, “Where is the middle ground?”. He suggests that educators use the REAL (rate, expression, accuracy, learning) approach to putting our fluency practice on a balanced plan. The four suggested exercises of the REAL approach are: #1 The four attributes of fluency get a workout-together, #2 Make peace with ORF measurements, #3 Revisit repeated reading, #4 Use poetry and readers theater. These four exercises can be attributed to the works of many, such as; Samuels, Rasinski, Hammon, Hasbrouck, Meyer, Felton, Pinnell and Scharer.

Marcell sums up the debate on fluency with a simple statement, “…fluency is but a stage name. Rate and Accuracy may be at the microphone, but the true voice is Comprehension. That’s real reading.” As educators our goal is to help mold good readers.

Rasinski, Timothy V (1989). Fluency for everyone: Incorporating fluency instruction in the classroom. The Reading Teacher , Vol. 42, No. 9, pp. 690-693.

In the 1980’s there was no official statement that said what reading fluency was or exactly what it consisted of, but there were a few authorities in reading that recognized its importance. Harris and Hodges (1981) defined fluency as “expressing oneself smoothly, easily and readily”. Those fluent readers should have “freedom from word identification problems”. Rasinski concluded that a fluent reader should then be one who reads orally with accuracy, quickness and expression.

Allington (1983) stated that fluency, although recognized as important to reading, was neglected in reading instruction. Rasinski points out that most basal reading programs give little attention to fluency. Students did not receive fluency instruction unless they exhibited a severe deficiency in this area. Rasinski agrees with Allington that fluency is a needed component in the reading instruction.

Rasinski answers the question, How can classroom teachers teach fluency to their students? He suggests several methods that others have proven successful. These methods include repeated readings (Dowhower, 1987; Herman, 1985; Samuels, 1979), reading while listening or echo reading (Carbo, 1978; Chomsky, 1976; Gamby, 1983; Laffey and Kelly, 1982; Schneeberg, 1977; Van Der Leij, 1981), the neurological impress method (heckelman, 1969), and reading in phrases (Allington, 1983; Amble and Kelly, 1970; Grgory, 1986). These methods do however pose a potential problem because when they were first designed the targeted group was small or individual. The focus of these methods can be very narrow. Rasinski helps identify the key principles of these methods that teachers can use.

Repetition is one of the proven methods for teachings fluency. Rasinski states that research has shown that repetition is most effective when students meet target words in a variety of texts of through repeated readings of one text. He suggests that teachers use ways to keep repeated reading from become boring by using natural events in the classroom to practice this method. Reader’s theater (Rasinski, 1988), partner repeated readings and buddy reading with older students are some ways to accomplish this goal.

Modeling is another proven method for fluency practice and instruction. In many classrooms students are often in reading groups with those on their level, therefore if they are poor readers they are also hearing poor readers read. Rasinski states that the teacher, who is the best model in the classroom, should set aside time each day to model reading to his/her students with good children’s literature.

The research on metacognition in reading demonstrates that it may be important for readers to know what happens when they read and why they are having problems when reading. Using direct instruction and feedback are important methods for the instruction of fluency. Rasinski suggests that before reading aloud to the students that the teacher instruct them to listen to the expression used, the rate of reading and when pauses and stops occur. He also suggests that the teacher provide feedback when the listening to the student read. Koskinen and Blum (1986) provide a model of instruction in which students are taught to provide feedback for each other.

Choral reading is the most common type of support during reading since it is easily integrated into the typical classroom setting. Students read the same passage in unison. The teacher must lead the group during choral reading or ensure that there are several fluent readers in the group.

The use of tape recorded passages or books is another way to support fluency. This method allows students to work on fluency independently. The teacher must remind the student to pay attention to the text and not simply listen to the recording.

Another method Rasinski suggests is text unit. In this method the student reads text that has previously been marked with phrase boundaries (Weiss, 1983). This helps to give the student a natural place to pause or break. Using poems, speeches or songs marked with phrase boundaries help the student to develop and maintain a mature sense of phrasing.

Rasinski states that teachers should equip their classrooms with a library full of books that students of all levels can read independently. Using easy materials is the best promoted way to support fluency. Students are able to focus on prosody and rate when they are not required to use their energy on decoding. This also helps build confidence and gives them a sense of power as they read these materials.

The principles in these methods should be used as guidelines in fluency instruction. Rasinksi suggests we follow the lead of Carol Chomsky and combine some of these methods to best meet the needs of students. These methods are best used when combined throughout lessons and activities and not in isolation. He encourages teaches to not blindly follow the practices of others but to use the principles of fluency to build and maintain your own fluency model.

Kelley, Michelle, Clausen-Grace, Nicki (2006). R5: The Sustained Silent Reading makeover that transformed readers, The Reading Teacher Vol. 60, No. 2 October 2006, pp. 148-156.

Michelle Kelley, a university teacher, and Nicki Clausen Grace, a third grade teacher, performed an action research study in Nicki’s classroom to examine the metacognitive awareness or ability her students had to monitor and guide their thinking during the reading process. They also wanted to determine whether direct instruction in metacognitive strategies would benefit all learners. This became an apparent need for Grace when she closely analyzed the Sustained Silent Reading time in her classroom. As she carefully observed her third graders she noticed that there were several disengaged readers in the room. This caused concern due to the research that suggests a powerful link between time spent reading and reading achievement (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999). Other research also shows that students who read by choice perform better on standardized tests and make higher grades in school than those who do not read by choice.

Grace was concerned about two main groups of students in her classroom; the advanced readers that were performing above grade level and the “fake” readers who were pretending to read the words in the text. Through their research Grace and Kelley hoped to find out more of the third graders metacognitive awareness and ways to engage the disengaged reader and accelerate the highest readers.

The DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) 4-8 was chosen to help Grace and Kelley with their research. They chose the DRA 4-8 because it provided data regarding reading engagement as well as metacognitive awareness and because the DRA K-3 assessment had already been performed on the third graders. This gave them wider range to assess the higher readers in the class.

The first component of the DRA consists of a self assessment of the students’ strengths, weaknesses and a section for goal setting. After Grace’s students completed this section, her fears were confirmed that her students had a small range of genres and read mostly nonchallenging texts. The next component of the assessment focused on comprehension. This section provided Grace with the data that her students would benefit from direct instruction in comprehension strategies and metacognitive awareness. 89% of the students scored in the intervention and instructional levels in the metacognative awareness area.

The data received from the DRA led Grace and Kelley to redesign the SSR block that had been founded in the 1990’s. The goal of SSR to allow students time to practice reading at their independent levels in order to gain fluency, increase vocabulary and enhance comprehension is good. However, Grace and Kelley were convinced that restructuring of the SSR time to include direct instruction and feedback.

The result of this restructuring was R5 (read, relax, reflect, respond, and rap). Three days a week Grace had her students spend 10-25 minutes reading self-selected texts. The students would then respond in writing as they reflected on the metacognitive practices they had been taught during direct instruction. The “rap” part of R5 occurred when the students had conversations about their reflections during pair share or whole class discussion. The students would then report on their partner’s reflections. Grace would then help the students discover the metacognitive strategies they used.

Grace and Kelley readministered the survey on engagement and were very pleased with the results. However, they were curious if the results would continue to increase if they could prolong their research, so Grace looped up with her class and continued the project. Seven months after they began the research they administered the DRA 4-8. The results were quite impressive. Now, 100% (previously 33%) of the students scored at the independent or advanced levels for wide reading and goal setting. Sixty-one percent (38% earlier) of the students listed three of more genres of books read. Seven genres were now reported and the data showed an increase in each genre. The area of comprehension also showed significant growth. Only 5% (61% previously) of the students now scored at the instructional level in prediction, summary and literal comprehension. The metacognitive awareness showed the most marked improvement of all areas. Eight-nine percent of the students scored at the intervention or instructional levels when initially assessed. After the seven month project, only 5% of the students scored at instructional level and none at the intervention level.

Grace and Kelley state that “teachers need to carefully and consistently monitor and guide the developing reading habits of their students”. The most motivating discovery they noted was having the students share (rap) about their reading. The emphasis that Grace placed metacognitive awareness was a benefit for every reader in her classroom. Throughout the project the “fake readers become engaged readers and their engaged readers to become fanatics”.

Destiny’s Summaries:

Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 230-251.

Fluency has become a driving force in the reading assessment world. Teachers and researchers are viewing fluency as a way key indicator for instruction. In most classrooms fluency is measured by assessments that may cause misconceptions of skilled reading. There are still a number of questions to be answered before one can understand fluency in the reading process. It is believed that accuracy, automaticity, and prosody are all components needed to measure fluency accurately. This particular article does not focus on accurate word recognition, but rather on accuracy that lies within automaticity and fluency assessments. Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, and Meisinger hope to expand the understanding of fluency by combining aspects of research on reading fluency, theoretical perspectives of automaticity and prosody. The Researchers also suggest new ways of considering fluency in the literacy curriculum.

In order to address all components, research was broken into several parts. The first part examines theoretical perspectives on reading fluency with an emphasis of automaticity and prosody in fluency. Second, four definitions of fluent reading will be considered along with the authors conceptions of reading fluency. Third, the relationship between reading fluency, dominant assessments, and current practice will be explored. Finally, suggestions will be made for a broader understanding of goals for reading fluency.

Automaticity has several characteristics to consider. The first attribute is speed. As automaticity develops, performance is not only accurate but increases speed. When considering speed, one must also take the power law into consideration. Under the power law, beginning readers increase reading rate rapidly. This is compared to students in their first grade year. These students often show gains of 30 words per minute. More proficient readers, such as a group of eighth graders, may only gain 18 words per minute during the year. The second attribute of automaticity is effortlessness. Fluent readers do not struggle and are able to recognize most words within a given text. Also, most fluent readers are able to decode text while comprehending. The final characteristic of automaticity is lack of awareness. Disfluent readers are always aware of steps needed to decode words within text, which slows the reader down; whereas fluent readers are automatic and can identify most of the words without effort. It is important to remember that characteristics of automaticity are continuously growing and develop at different stages. To develop automaticity, readers should take part in repeated readings and be exposed to a wide reading of texts. Repeated readings help students develop prosody, learn appropriate phrasing, and identify meaning. A wide verity of text will help students to read across themes so new words and vocabulary can be supported in a wide range of context.

Prosody is the act of reading with appropriate expression connected to text. Young readers tend to read word by word without expression. Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, and Meisinger posed the question, if development of expressiveness is important, what about it is important and what is it important for? Prosody captures the rise and falls of pitch, rhythm and stress-the pausing, lengthening and elision surrounding certain words and phrases that is found in the pull of linguistics communication (Hirschberg, 2002). Teachers often ask students to read for fluency because it is a powerful and notable measure of reading ability. Young children however cannot read fluently and are unable to use proper prosody. The act of reading quickly and accurately in younger readers, results in less expression. To monitor prosody within young readers, one should look for familiar stress patterns associated with the spoken language of the student. English learning students will not stress words in the same way that English speaking students do, because stress patterns vary throughout different languages. It has been thought that prosody can contribute to helping people retain information in the working memory, but there is no evidence to support such a theory. Just like teachers using songs and poems to help students remember important topics and facts, a poetic version of texts could work in the same manor. With that being said, prosody could improve reading comprehension. Research is currently vague that prosody could be a reliable reading assessment.

Fluency can be defined in many different ways. The first definition is accurate and automatic word recognition. Second, we look at fluency as prosody, expressiveness, and syntax. Third, fluency is known as skilled reading being able to decode and comprehend text at the same time. The fourth and final definition of fluency views fluency as a bridge between decoding and comprehension. This view suggests that fluency has an interchanging relationship with comprehension. Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, and Meisinger also present their own definition of fluency: Fluency combines accuracy, automaticity, and oral reading prosody, which, taken together facilitate the reader’s construction of meaning. It is demonstrated during oral reading through ease of word recognition, appropriate pacing, phrasing, and intonation. It is a factor in both oral and silent reading that can limit or support comprehension (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger et al 2010) .

Today classrooms are using programs to assess reading fluency, which can actually narrow the view of reading fluency within a student. Along with Curriculum-Based Measurements, some 15,000 teachers are using DIBELS as the single most frequently used assessment in the classroom. DIBELS has a different way of looking at fluency. They have modified the definition to include fluency in the component skills and lower level processes. DIBELS in this article is considered an inappropriate measure of student fluency ability. It is essential to expand the way fluency is measured so that it includes more than rate and accuracy.

Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, and Meisinger have given their ideas for implications within assessment. First, fluency needs to be viewed as more than just correct words per minute. Unless prosody becomes part of reading fluency measures, there is a fear that oral reading fluency will be solely based on quick decoding of a passage. Second, students do not need to focus on rate and sacrifice meaning. Third, oral reading needs to be evaluated. With a combination of the above implications, we can gather significant data through a wider range of assessments. Above all readers need to be truly fluent instead of fast.

Morris, R. D., Trathen, W., Lomax, R. G., Perney, J. Kucan, Frye, E. M., Bloodgood, J. W., Ward, D., & Schlagal, R. (2012). Modeling aspects of print-processing skill: Implications for reading assessment. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.

In traditional reading diagnosis, teachers have focused on untimed word recognition, oral reading accuracy, and comprehension to determine an individual’s reading ability. A group of university professors developed a study that joins oral reading fluency along with the standard units of reading measurement to assess students. The study examines how automaticity directly relates to print-processing tasks.

Traditional reading inventories focused on the ability to read isolated words at a given grade level. Although accuracy is important to reading, it has not been proven to be sufficient evidence to predict reading comprehension. Accuracy combined with comprehension will help determine a student’s reading level. More recently, reading fluency has also been examined as an important reading assessment factor. In this study Morris, Trathen, Lomax, Per