Fluency Bridge between Decoding and Reading Comprehension.pdf

7/27/2019 Fluency Bridge between Decoding and Reading Comprehension.pdf

1/11

JOHN J. PIKULSKIDAVID J. CHARD

Fluency: Bridge between deeodingand reading eomprehensionpart of a developmental process of

building decoding skills, fluency can form abridge to reading comprehension.Fuency, which has been referred to as a "neg-lected" aspect of reading by the NationalReading Panel (National Institute of ChildHealth and Human D evelopment [N ICHD ], 2000),currently is receiving substantial attention from re-searchers and practitioners. This may be becauseNICHD's influential Report of the NationalReading Panel identified fluency as one of onlyfive critical comp onents of reading.

Fluency has sometimes been viewed as essen-tially an oral reading phenomenon. The NationalReading Panel defined reading fluency as "the abil-ity to read text quickly, accurately, and with prop-er expression" (NICHD, 2000, p. 3-5). Definitionsthat emphasize the oral aspect of fluency may, atleast in part, account for why fluency has not his-torically received much attention. The importanceof oral reading pales dramatically in comparisonto that of silent reading com prehension. M ost read-ers spend a minuscule amount of time doing oralreading as compared to silent reading.A definition of fluency needs to encompass

more than oral reading. The Literacy Dictionary:The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing definedfluency as "freedom from word identification prob-lems that might hinder comprehension" (Harris &Hodges, 1995, p. 85). This definition enlarges ourunderstanding of reading fluency to include com-prehension. Samuels (2002), a pioneer in researchand theory in reading fluency, cited this expandeddefinition as a major force in elevating the impor-tance of fluency in the field of reading.

The correlation between fluency and compre-hension was clearly established by a large-scaledata analysis from the National Assessment ofEducational Progress in Reading (Pinnell et al.,1995). In that study, 44% of the subjects were notfluent when reading grade-level appropriate mate-rials; the study also showed a significant, positiverelationship between oral reading fluency and read-ing comprehension. However, the relationshipbetween fluency and comprehension is fairly com-plex. This complexity was summed upwell byStecker, Roser, and M artinez (1998) in their reviewof fluency research: "The issue of w hether fluencyis an outgrowth [of] or a contributor to compre-hension is unresolved. There is empirical evidenceto support both p ositions" (p. 300). However, in theend they concluded, "Fluency has been shown tohave a 'reciprocal relationship' with comprehen-sion, with each fostering the other" (p. 306).

A com prehensive definition, then, would relatethe centrality of fluency to reading comp rehensionand its estabhshed dimen sions. We propose the fol-lowing synthesis of the definitions in the Report ofthe National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) andThe Literacy Dictionary (Harris & Hodges, 1995):Reading fluency refers toefficient, effective word-recognition skills that p ermit a reader to construct themeaning of text. Fluency is manifested in accurate, rap-id, expressive oral reading and is applied during, andmakes possible, silent reading comprehension.We think that the issue of a d efinition isno ttrivial but central to making important decisionsabout the teaching and assessment of fluency.Directly related to a definition is whether a "sur-face" or "deep" construct of fluency is adopted.A surface construct of fluency builds on an oral

f s i o 2005 International Reading Association (pp. 510-519) doi:10.1598/RT.58.6.2


2/11

reading definition and views the development of flu-ency as the direct treatment of accuracy, speed, andprosody of oral reading. A surface view of fluencyleads to practices such as simply urging studentsto read faster. On the other hand, a deep constructviews fluency far more broadly as part of a devel-opmental process of building decoding skills thatwill form a bridge to reading comprehension andthat will have a reciprocal, causal relationship w ithreading com prehension. In a deep view of fluency,it becom es necessary to think abou t fiuency as partof a child's earliest experiences with print and withthe phonology that becomes associated with thatprint. In this view, efficient decoding is consistent-ly related to comprehension.

H i s t o r i c a l d e v e lo p m e n t o f th ec o n s t ru c t o f re a d i n g f i u e n c yWh ile an early discussion of the construct ofreading fluency is found in the classic publicationby Huey (1908/1968), most discussions of fluencytrace their modern theoretical foundations to the1974 seminal article by LaBerge and Samuels.These researchers argued that human beings can at-tend to only one thing at a time. We are able to domore than one thing at a time if we alternate ourattention between two or more activities, or if oneof the activities is so well learned that it can be per-formed automatically. Reading successfully is acomplex interaction of language, sensory percep-tion, memory, and motivation. To illustrate the roleof fluency, it helps to characterize this multifac-eted process as including at least two activities:(1) word idenfificafion or deco ding and (2) com -prehension, or the construction of the m eaning oftext. In order for reading to proceed effectively, thereader cannot focus attention on both processes.Constructing meaning involves making inferences,

responding critically, and so on, and it always re -quires attention. The nonfluent reader can alter-nate attention between the two proc esses; however,this makes reading a laborious, often punishingprocess. If attention is drained by decoding words,little or no capacity is available for the attention-demanding process of comprehending. Therefore,automaticity of decodinga critical component offluencyis essential for high levels of readingachievement.

Stanovich (1986) also contributed significantlyto elevating the importance of reading fluency. Inhis classic article, he dem onstrated a clear relation-ship between fluency and the amoun t of reading inwhich a reader engages. Readers who achievesome fluency are likely to read more extensivelythan readers who lack fluency because the latterfind reading difficult. Stanovich pointed out thatas a result of reading more extensively, readersgrow in all the skills that contribute to fluency andin fluency itself Nonfluent readers w ho avoid read-ing fall further and further behind.

The Report of the National Reading Panel(NICHD, 2000) significantly elevated attention tofluency. The panel's review largely reflected theposition that "fluency develops from reading prac-tice" (p. 3-1). Therefore, much of the review w asdevoted to analyzing the research supporting twomajor approaches to providing students with read-ing practice: "first, procedures that emphasize re-peated oral reading practice or guided repeated oralreading practice; and second, all formal efforts toincrease the amounts of independent or recreation-al reading that students engage in" (p. 3-5). Thepanel concluded that there is substantial evidenceto support the use of repeated reading procedures.However, they raised questions about the evidenceto support wide independent reading for prom otingfluency:

There seems little reason to rejec t the idea that lotsof silent reading would provide students with valuablepractice that would enhance fluency and, ultimately,comprehension.... [l]t could be that if you read more,you w ill become a better reader; however, it also seemspossible that better readers simply choose to readmore. (p . 3-21)In essence, the panel concluded that while there isvery strong correlational support for inde pendentreading contributing to fluency, there is no con-vincing experimental research to show that in-creasing independent reading will increase fluencyor reading achievement.The previous discussion of fluency and of therelated research is certainly not a comprehensivereview. Many important research findings are omit-ted. For more comprehensive discussions of fluen-cy, readers are encouraged to consult reviews, suchas those by the National Reading Panel (NICHD,2000), Reutzel (1996), Stecker at al. (1998), and

Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension 51il


3/11

the entire Sum mer 1991 (volume 30, number 3) is-sue of the journa l Theory Into Practice.While the National Reading Panel's report(NICH D, 2000 ) is clearly instructive for its criticalreview of how practice may affect fiuency, the posi-tion taken in this article is that a much broader ap-proach is warranted, one that addresses the need forsystematic, long-term, explicit fluency instructionalong with careful monitoring and assessment for atleast some students. Rather than focus solely on howto improve fluency when it is not developing as ex-pected, it would seem instructive to examine the el-ements of early literacy that contribute to fluency.

Ehri (199 5,19 98) has developed a carefully re-searched, elegant theory of how readers systemati-cally progress in stages to achieve fluency, which isin line w ith a "de ep," developmental construct offluency. We review her theory because it brings co-herence to much of the research on fluency and be-cause it offers a framework for instruction designedto promote and improve fluency. Ehri distinguishedfour stages of reading development.Readers at the Pre-Alphabetic Stage have no

appreciation of the alphabefic principlethe ideathat, in languages like English, there is a systematicrelationship between the limited number of soundsof the language and the graphic forms (letters) ofthe language. At the Pre-A lphabetic S tage, childrenattempt to translate the unfamiliar visual forms ofprint into familiar oral language through visualclues in the print. Children might remember theword monkey by associating the descending shapeof the last letter with a monkey's tail. Obviouslythis is not a productive approach and quickly leadsto confusion because my, pony, and many otherwords would also be read as monkey.At the Partial Alphabetic Stage, readers havelearned that letters and sounds are related, and theybegin to use that insight. However, they are not ableto deal with the full complexity of the sounds inwords, so they a ren't able to make co mplete use ofthe letter-sound relationships. Therefore, childrenfocus on the most salient parts of a word and con-sequently use initial and, later, final letters as theclues to a printed w ord's pronunciation. If readers at

this stage learn that the letter sequence g-e-t is get,they may focus just on the g and the sound it rep-resents to identify the word. How ever, using thisstrategy of focusing on the first letter, the lettersequences give, go, and gorilla might also be iden-tified as get. While children at this stage of devel-opment will make errors in identifying words, theycan make progress toward becoming fluent becausethey have developed the insight that the letters of aword are clues to the sounds of the word.

As children become more familiar with lettersand sounds, they move into the Eully AlphabeticStage. Now, even though they may never have seenit in print before, if they know the sounds com-monly associated with the letters b-u-g, they canthink about the sounds for each of the letters andblend them together to arrive at the pronunciationof the word. As a result of encountering the print-ed word bu g several time s, as few as four times ac-cording to a widely cited study (Reitsma, 1983),children come to accurately, instantly identify theword bug without attending to the individual let-ters, sounds, o r letter-sound associations. Ehri (1998)described skilled reading in the following way:"Most of the words are known by sight. Sight read-ing is a fast-acting process. The term sight indicatesthat sight of the word activates that word in mem-ory, including information about its spelling, pro-nunciation, typical role in sentences, and mea ning"(pp. 11-12). This instant, accurate, and automaticaccess to all these dimensions of a printed word isthe needed fluency that will allow readers to focustheir attention on comp rehension rather than on de-coding. It is important to note that Ehri's theory andresearch ind icate that it is the careful processingof print in the Eully Alphabetic Stage that leads tothis rapid, instant recognition. Partial Alphabeticreaders store incomplete representations of w ordsand, therefore, confuse similar words, such as were,where, wire, and wore. However, once the wordform is fully processed, with repeated encountersof the w ord, it is recognized instantly.

Readers who recognize whole words instantlyhave reached the Consolidated Alphabetic Stage.They also develop another valuable, attention-saving decoding skill. Not only do readers at thisstage store words as units, but also repeated en-counters with words allow them to store letter pat-terns across different word s. A m ultiletter unit like-ent will be stored as a unit as a result of reading the

512 The Rea ding Tea che r Vol. 58, No. 6 March 2005


4/11

words went, sent, and bent. Upon encountering theword dent for the first time, a consolidated alpha-betic reader would need to connect only two units:d and -ent, rather than the four units that the FullyAlphabefic reader would need to combine. Whilethis approach to reading a word is faster thanblending the individual phonemes, it is not as fastand efficient as sight recognition of the word.Readers who have reached the Consolidated Stageof reading development are in a good position toprogress toward increasingly efficient fluency;however, in addition to these advanced word-iden-tificafion skills, they also need to increase the ir lan-guage vocabulary development in order to reachadvanced levels of fluent reading .

a d e e p c o n s t ru c t of f l u e n c yOur perception is that until recently some,though certainly not all, educators took a rathersimplisfic a pproach to developing fluency that issummed up in the admonition "read, read, read."The expectation was that if students read more,they would achieve fluency. How ever, research andtheory sugge st that at least some students will needexpert instruction and teacher guidance in order to

progress efficiently through the stages of readingdevelopme nt. We propose a nine-step developmen -tal program for improving fluency. Some of thesteps, such as building the graphophonic founda-tion for fluency or high-frequency vocabulary, areusually accom plished in a relatively short period oftime (often a year or two), while others, such asbuilding oral language sk ills, are unending. O urgoal in this article is to outline the rationale andthe breadth of instruction needed for developing adeep con struct of fluency. We give some referencesthat offer suggestions for instructional strategiesand m aterials, but space limitations preclude treat-ing each of these areas in depth. The nine-step pro-gram should include

1. Building the graphophonic foundafions forfluency, including phonological awareness,letter familiarity, and phon ics.2. Building and extending vocabulary and orallanguage skills.

3. Providing expert instrucfion and practice inthe recognition of high-frequency vocabulary.4. Teaching common word parts and spellingpatterns.5. Teaching, modeling, and providing practice

in the application of a decoding strategy.6. Using appropriate texts to coach strategicbehaviors and to build reading speed.7. Using repeated reading procedures as an in-tervention approach for struggling readers.8. Extending growing fluency through wide in-dependent reading.9. Mon itoring fluency developmen t throughappropriate assessment procedures.

Bu i l d in g th e g r a p h o p h o n i c fo u n d a t io n sfor f iuencyEhri listed three prerequisite graphophonic ca-pabilities as foundations for fiuen cy: (1) letter famil-iarity, (2) phonemic awareness, and (3) knowledgeof how graphemes typically represent phonem es inwords.A recent publication from the InternationalReading Association (Strickland & Schickendanz,2004) offered practical, research-based approach-es to developing grapho phonic skills, including let-ter familiarity, in emergent readers. Instrucdon inthe area of phonological awareness has been ad-dressed widely (e.g., Adams, Foorman, Lundberg,& Beeler, 1998; O'Connor, Notari-Syverson, &Vadasy, 1998.)The importance of the three graphophonic fac-tors is fully documented in numerous research re-ports (e.g., Adam s, 1990; NICH D, 200 0). In orderto move from the Pre-Alphabetic Stage to thePartial Alphabefic and Fully Alphabetic Stages(Ehri, 1998), students need to grasp the alphabeficprinciple and to apply efficiently information about

the relationship between the letters and sounds(phonics) to recognize wo rds. This clearly requ iresa high level of familiarity with letter forms as wellas the ability to segment and blend the smallestunits of spoken language, phonemes.Ora l language foundat ions for f luency

In addifion to the graphophonic skills, Ehri's(1998) theory requires a foundation in language

Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension 513


5/11

skills so that students are familiar with the.syntaxor grammatical function of the words and phrasesthey are reading and with their meanings.Developing the oral language and vocabularyskills of children, particularly those who are learn-

ing English as a second language or those whospent their preschool years in language-restrictedenvironm ents, is one of the greatest challenges fac-ing educators. Many excellent resources exist formeeting this challenge. Recent examples includetexts by Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002);Blachowicz and Fisher (2002); and Nagy (1988).Ehri (1998) showed that progress in readingbeyond the beginning stages is dependent on orallanguage development, pointing out that readingwords, particularly reading them fluently, is de-

pendent on familiarity with them in their oral form.If the syntactic and meaning aspects of the wordare to be activated, they must be part of what thereader knows through oral language development.For the word-recognition process as proposed inEhri's theory to be complete, it must connect withmeaning that has been developed as another aspectof language development. C onsider the followingwords: zigzags and onychophagia (nail biting).Ma ture readers have no difficulty very rapidly de-coding the first word, even though it is one of theleast frequent words in printed English. However, ittakes mature readers m uch longer to arrive at a pro-nunciation of the second word because it not onlyinfrequently appears in print but is also very infre-quently used in speech and, therefore, is not likelyto be a word in a mature reader's mental lexicon.Unless a printed word can connect with both thephonological memory for the word and also withthe syntactical and m eaning aspects of the w ord, itcannot be fluently decoded or read. It seems un-fortunate that many surface discussions of fluencyfail to m ake the point that fluency is dependent onthe reader's vocabulary as w ell as on his or her de-coding skills.T e a c h i n g high- f requency vocabulary

High-frequency words are those words that ap-pear over and over again in our language wordssuch as the, of, and, at, and to . If developing read-ers cannot instantly identify these words, they areunlikely to become fluent.

One app roach to building fluent recognition ofhigh-frequency vocabulary, exceedingly popularwith primary-grade teachers, is the use of word wallswhere high-frequency vocabulary is posted andpracticed (P.M. Cunningham, 2000). Cunninghamalso offered a variety of other approaches to teachinghigh-frequency words, as did Bear, Invernizzi,Templeton, and Johnston (19 96).

Ehri's (1995, 1998) theory and research alsooffered important, practical teaching suggestions.High-frequency words often have been seen as aserious challenge because many of them don't lendthemselves to straightforward application of de-coding skills; they are, in the jargon of reading in-struction, phonically irregularwords such as the,of, was, and have. Teaching high-frequency wordscan be difficult. This difficulty may very well con-tribute to the periodic abandonment of phonics ap-proaches and the rise of whole-word approachesto teaching beginning reading skills, with accom -panying em phasis on drill using flashcards to forcechildren to read the words as a whole. Ehri's worksuggested that they also contain many letter-soundregularities, and that these regularities are the bestmnemonics for developing accurate, instant recog-nition. For example, while the word have does notfollow the generalization about the effect of a finale on a preceding vowel soun d, the h, v, and e all be-have as they should, and the a does represent asound that it often represents. Ehri suggested thatwe should po int out the regular elemen ts of irregu-lar words in order to help children gain instantrecognition of them. This is a practice rarely men-tioned by "experts" or used by teachers, but itmight play a very impo rtant role in avoiding diffi-culty with such words and thus promoting the de-velopment of fluency.Re c o g n i z i n g w o r d par ts and spe l lingpat te rns

Word parts and spelling patterns are combina-tions of letters such as at, ell, ick, and op, which arefound as units in many words that appear in begin-ning reading texts.Here again, P.M. Cunningham (2000) and Bearet al. (1996) are am ong the m any resources that of-fer practical teaching suggestions, including a listof the most comm on w ord parts found in beginningreading materials.

(514 The Reading Teaeh er Vol. 58, No. 6 March 2005


6/11

Introducing students to multiple-letter unitsclearly helps to move them from the FullyAlphabetic to the Consolidated Alphabetic Stage.However, Ehri's (1995, 1998) research and theoryoffered an important instructional generalizationstudents should first be introduced to and madecognizant of the individual letters and sounds thatconstitute the rime (a Fully Alphabetic approach) inorder to better recall and identify the unit.Teach ing a decod ing s t ra t egy

There are several major ways in which wordscan be recogn ized or identified in print: instantly asunits; through recognition and blending of phonicelements; through the context in which they appear,including language/sentence context and pictureclues; or by checking the phonetic respellings of adictionary or glossary. Ehri's (1995) theory is clear:The best way to recognize words is through instantrecognition that drains no attention. All other ap-proaches require attention. However, when a wordis not instantly recognized, it is useful for readers tobe strategic.Ehri's (1995) theory suggested a strategic ap-proach to dealing w ith words that are not instantlyrecognized. In kindergarten and the beginning offirst grade, em phasis is on moving young readersfrom the Partial Alphabetic Stage to the FullyAlphabetic Stage of reading, with an emphasis oncareful attention to the graphophonic characteris-tics of the word. By the middle of first grade, thegoal is to move students increasingly into theConsolidated A lphabetic Stage. The italicized por-tion of the following strategy is recommended asyoung readers become familiar w ith word parts.

Look at the letters from left to right. As you look at the letters, think a bout thesounds for the letters. Blend the sounds together and look for wordparts you know to read the word. Ask yourself, "Is this a word I know? Does itmake sense in what I am reading?" If it doesn't make sense, try other strategies(e.g., pronouncing the word another way orreading on).Readers who are at the Partial Alphabetic andFully Alphabetic Stages will need to look careful-

ly at the word they are trying to identify, thinkabout the sounds the letters are likely to represent,and then use the skill of phoneme blending to try toarrive at the correct decoding or pronunciation ofthe word. Because some words are not completelyphonically regular, students should then be encour-aged to ask themselves if their use of phonics re-sults in the identification of a word that makessense that it is a word they have heard before andfits the context of what they are reading. As stu-dents begin to move from the Fully Alphabetic tothe Consolidated Alphabetic Stage of development,in addition to using phonic elements, they shouldalso be encouraged to look for w ord parts (chunks)and spelling patterns that they know, such asphonogram s. The presentation of phonics and wordparts, followed by use of context, appears to be,by far, the best order.

Use of context as the primary approach to iden-tifying words has serious limitations. First, if thecontext is highly predictive of a word, it is likelythat students will not pay attention to the graphicinformation in the word. Careful processing of theprinted form is what eventually enables a reader torecognize that w ord instantly. This is a major limi-tation of the predictable texts that use very heavy,artificial context to allow word identification.Second, context rarely leads to the correct identifi-cation of a specific w ord. Ehri (1998) reviewed re-search suggesting that words in a text that carrythe most meaning can be correctly identified bycontext only about 10% of the time. However, con-text and the other approaches to decoding w ords doplay an important role in decodingthat of con-firming the identification of wo rds. As Ehri put it.

As each sight word is fixated, its meaning and pronun-ciation are triggered in memory quickly and automati-cally. However, the other word reading processes donot lie dormant; their contribution is not to identifywords in text but to confirm the identity already de-termined. Knowledge of the graphophonic system con-firms that the word's pronunciation fits the spelling onthe page. Knowledge of syntax confirms th at the wordfits into the structure of the sentence. World knowl-edge and text memory confirm that the word's mean-ing is consistent with the te xt's meaning up to th atpoint, (p. 11)


7/11

Usi ng approp r ia te tex ts to p rom otef l uency

In order for progress in fluency to be made , stu-dents need to practice and apply their growing word-identification skills to appropriate texts. Appropriatetexts are particularly critical for students havingdifficulty with word-identification skills. Guidedreading is once again a useful way to match studentsand texts. Resources such as the work of Fountasand Pinnell (1996) offer guidance in selecting textsand providing appropriate instruction with thosetexts.

Hiebe rt and Fisher (in press) studied fluencydevelopment as it relates to the features of the textsused for promoting fluency. Specifically, they wereinterested in exam ining the effects of texts in whichparticular text features were carefully controlled.The treatment texts that Hiebert and Fisher de-signed had the following key features: a smallnumber of unique w ords, a high percentage of m ostfrequently used words, and often repeated criticalwords (those words that influence the meaning ofthe text most). Students in the comparison groupread from texts typically associated with commer-cial reading programs. Students reading in thetreatment texts ma de significant gains in fluencyover their peers in the comparison cond ition. Therealso seemed to be an effect for comprehension forsecond-language learners. These findings suggest-ed that the features of the texts being used to pro-mote fluency should be carefully considered.U s i n q repeated read i nq p r o c e d u r e s

As noted earlier in this article, the Report ofthe National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) wasunequivocal in its support of repeated reading pro-cedures. The references described a range of pro-cedures in sufficient detail to allow teachers toemploy them with students who need extra supportin developing fluency. These procedures includedthose described as repeated reading (Samuels,1979), neurological impress (Heckelman, 1969),radio reading (Greene, 1979), paired reading(Topping, 1987), "and a variety of similar tech-niques" (p. 3-1). A review of these approaches sug-gests substantial differences in the procedures usedand the amount of teacher guidance offered (Chard,Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Kuhn & Stahl, 2000).

However, as noted, the panel concluded that all ap-peared to have m erit.E n c o u r a q i n q w i d e in d e p e n d e n t r e a d i n q

For more able reade rs, repeated read ings of thesame texts may not be as necessary as they are forstruggling readers. Increasing the amount of read-ing these able readers do may be as beneficial, andperhaps more so (Mathes & Fuchs, 1993).

The beneficial effects of wide reading appearto have been somew hat called into question by theReport of the National Reading Panel (NICHD,2000), which reached the following conclusion:"Based on the existing evidence, the NRP can onlyindicate that while encouraging students to readmight be beneficial, research has not yet demon-strated this in a clear and convincing manner"(p. 3). It is important to keep in mind that theNational Re ading Panel used restrictive criteria forwhat they included as research and also that itclearly held out the possibility of beneficial effectsfor w ide reading.

Previous highly respected research syntheseshave been far less restrained about the salutary ef-fects of wide reading. For exam ple. Becoming aNation of Readers (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, &Wilkinson, 1985) concluded.Research suggests that the amount of independent,silent reading that children do in school is significantlyrelated to gains in reading achievement.... Researchalso shows that the am ount of reading studen ts do outof school is consistently related to gains in readingachievement, (pp. 76-77)

In her critical review of beginning reading research,Adam s (1990) concluded, "Children should be giv-en as much opportunity and encouragem ent as pos-sible to practice their reading. Beyond the basics,children 's reading facility, as w ell as their vocabu-lary and conceptual growth, depends strongly onthe amount of text they read " (p. 127).Stanovich and his colleagues (A.E. Cunning-ham & Stanovich, 1998; Nathan & Stanovich,1991; Stanovich, 1986) have presented im pressiveresearch results and theoretical arguments for thevalue of wide reading. The evidence and rationalethat they present, however, is that the positive rela-tionship between reading achievem ent and widereading may not be affected exclusively through


8/11

the developmen t of fluency but through the devel-opme nt of language and cognitive abilities as well.If students are making adequate progress withfluency, wide reading rather than repeated readingsmay lead to greater improvements in vocabularyand comp rehension. H owever, for less able read-ers experiencing particular difficulties with fluency,repeated readings remain an important approachto building fluency.The assessment o f f luency

As noted at the beginning of this article, flu-ency has been referred to as the "neglected aspect"of reading. The assessm ent of fluency, in particular,appears to have received very limited attention.There are few research studies that have investi-gated how fluency should be assessed or what cri-teria should be applied to determine wh ether or nota reader has achieved it. Perhaps it is this dearth ofdata that led the National Reading Panel (NICHD,2000) to conclude,A number of informal procedures can be used in theclassroom to assess fluency: informal reading invento-ries, miscue analysis, pausing indices, and readingspeed calculations. All these assessment proceduresrequire oral reading of t ext, and all can provide an ad-equate index of fluency, (p. 3-9 )

While few experimental studies have been con-ducted using these informal procedures, it mayvery well have been that the National ReadingPanel recognized the practical need for classroomassessment, leading them to endorse proceduresthat may not have the strong research support theymore typically require in other parts of the report.To meet this practical need, there are many pub-lished informal inventories, such as the QualitativeReading Inventory-III, and leveled texts, such asLeveled Reading Passages (Houghton Mifflin,

2001). These are just two exam ples of instrumentsthat can be used to periodically and practically as-sess the four dime nsions of fluency that are neces-sary for a full, deep, developmental construct offluency: oral reading accuracy, oral reading rate,quality of oral reading, and reading comprehension.Teachers who want to assess selective aspectsof fluency can use guidelines that have been sug-gested for assessing oral reading rate and accuracy(e.g., Hasbrouck & Tindal, 1992; Rasinski, 2003).

Likewise, procedures have been established for as-sessing the quality of oral reading using standard-ized rubrics that go beyond rate and accuracy, suchas those based upon National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) data (Pinnell et al.,1995).We recommend that teachers at second gradeand beyond take measures of fluency, at least atthe beginning and end of a school year, to gaugeprogress in this important area and to check p eri-odically through the year any students who aremaking doubtful progress. A more comprehensivereview of the research related to fluency assess-ment is beyond the scope of this article.

Fluency is necessaryW hile the construct of fluency might have beenneglected in the past, it is receiving much-deservedattention presently. A very strong research and the-oretical base indicates that while fluency in and ofitself is not sufficient to ensure high levels of read-ing achievement, fluency is absolutely necessaryfor that achievement because it depends upon andtypically reflects comprehension. If a reader hasnot developed fluency, the process of decodingwords drains attention, and insufficient attention isavailable for constructing the meaning of texts.Fluency builds on a foundation of oral lan-guage skills, phonem ic aw areness, familiarity withletter forms, and efficient de coding skills. Ehri's(1995) description of the stages of word recogni-tion explains how readers com e to recognize wordsby sight through the careful processing of p rint.Substantial research has also been cond uctedon how best to develop fluency for students who donot yet have it. W hile there is a dearth of exp eri-mental research studies on developing fluencythrough increasing the amount of independent

reading in which students engag e, there is substan-tial correlational ev idence show ing a clear relation-ship between the amount students read, theirreading fluency, and their reading comprehension.However, students who are n onachieving in read-ing are not in a position to engage in wide reading,and they may need more guidance and support inorder to develop fluency. Research shows that a va-riety of procedures based on repeated reading s canhelp readers to improve their fluency.

Fluency: 5171


9/11

Little research is available to guide the ass ess-ment of fluency . Wh ile more research is needed onthe issues of adequate ra tes of fluency at variousgrade levels and for judging the quality of oralreading, there is good agreem ent that the compre-hensive assessment of fluency must include meas-ures of oral reading accuracy, rate of oral reading,and quality of oral reading. There is also growingagreement that these dime nsions of fluency must beassessed within the context of reading comprehen-sion. Fluency without accompanying high levels ofreading comprehension is of very limited value.Pikulski is professor emeritus at the Universityof Delaware. He can be contacted at 12 D awnMeadow Lane, Newark, DE 19711, USA. Chardteaches at the University of Oregon at Eugene.ReferencesAdams , M.J. (1990). Beginning to read; Thinking and /earning

about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Adams , M.J., Foorman, B.R., L undberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998).

Phonemic awareness in young c h i l d r e n . Baltimore: PauiBrookes.

Ander son, R.C., Hiebe rt, E.H., Scott, J .A., & W iikinson, i.A.G.(1985). Becoming a n a t i o n o f r e a d e r s : T h e r e p o r t o f th ecommission on reading. Wa shington , DC: The Na tionaiinsti tute of Education.

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F.(1996). Words their way. Coiumbus, OH: Merri i i .Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringingwords to iife. New York: Guii ford.

Biachowicz, C, & Fisher, P.J. (2002 ). Teaching vocabulary inaii classrooms. Coiumbus, OiH: Merri i i .

Chard, D.J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B.J. (2002). A synthesis ofresearch on effective interventions for bui id ing f iuencyw i th e iemen ta ry s tuden ts w i th lea rn ing d isab i l i t i e s .J o u r n a l o f Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 35 ,386-406.

Cunningham , A.E., & Stano vich, K.E. (1998). What readingdoes for the m ind. American Educator, 22(1), 8-15.

Cunn ingham, P .M. (200 0 ) . Phonics they use. New York:Longman.

Ehri, LC. (1995). Stages of deveiopment in iearning to readwords by sight. J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h i n R e a d i n g , IB ,116-125.

Ehri, LC. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essentiaifor iearning to read words in English. In J.L Metsaia &L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word r e c o g n i ti o n i n b e g i n n i n g i it e r a c y(pp. 3-4 0). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Fountas , i.e., & P inneii, G.S. (1996). Guided reading: Good firstteaching for ail children. Portsm outh, NH: Heinemann.

Greene, F.P. (1979). Radio reading, in C. Pennock (Ed.),R e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n a t f o u r l in g u i s t ic l e v e l s (pp.104-107). Newark, DE: internationai Reading Association.

Harris, T .L, & Hodges, R.E. (1995). The iiteracy dictionary:The vocabulary of read ing and wr i t ing . Newark, DE:internationai Reading Association.

Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindai, G. (1992). Curricuium-ba sed f iu -ency norms for grades 2 through 5. Teaching ExceptionaiC h i i d r e n , 24 ,41-44.

Heckeiman, R.G. (1969). A neuroiogicai- impress method ofremed ia l - read ing ins t ruc t ion . Academic Therapy, 4,2 7 7 - 2 8 2 .

Hiebert, E.H., & Fisher, C.W. (in press). A review of theNationai Reading Panei's studies on fiuency: On the mat-te r of text. E l e m e n t a r y School Journal.

Houghton Miff i in. (2001). Leveled reading passages. Boston:Author.

Huey, E.B. (1968 ). The psychoiogy a n d pedagogy o f reading;w i t h a r e v i e w o f t h e h i s t o r y o f reading a n d writing a n d ofm e t h o d s , t e x t s , a n d hygiene i n re a d i n g . Cambridge. MA:MiT Press. (Originaiiy pubiished 1908 )

Kuhn, M.R., & Stahi, S.A. (2000). Fiuency: A r e v i e w o f devel-o p m e n t a l a n d r e m e d i a l p ra c t ic e s . Ann Arbor, Mi: Centerfor the improvement of Eariy Reading Achievement.

LaBerge, D., & Samueis, S.J. (1974). Towards a theory ofautomatic information processing in reading. CognitivePsychology, 6, 2 9 3 - 3 2 3 .

Mathes, P.G., & Fuchs, L.S. (1993). Peer-m ediated reading in-struction in special education resource rooms. LearningDisabi/ities Research & Practice, 8,233-243.

Nagy, W.E. (1988). Teaching vocabuiary t o im p r o v e r e a d i n gcomprehension. Newark, DE: in te rn at ion a i Read ingAssociation.

Natha n, R.G., . Stan ovic h, K.E. (1991). The c auses and con -sequences of differences in reading fiuency. Theory intoP r a c t i c e , 3 0 ,176-184.Nationai insti tu te of Chiid Heaith and Human De velopment.( 2 0 0 0 ) . R e p o r t o f th e N a t io n a l Reading P a n e i Teachingc h i i d r e n t o read: A n e v i d e n c e - b a s e d a s s e s s m e n t o f th es c i e n t i fi c r e s e a r c h l i te r a t u r e o n r e a d i n g a n d i ts i m p i i c a -t io n s f o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t io n (NiH Pubiication No. 00-47 69 ). Wash ingto n, DC: U.S. Gove rnmen t Pr in t ingOffice.

OConnor, R.E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P.F. (1998).L a d d e r s t o literacy: A i < i n d e r g a r t e n a c t i v i t y boo/t.Bait imore: Paui Brookes.

Pinneii , G.S., Pikuiski, J.J., Wixson, K.K., Campbeii , J.R.,Gough, P.B., & Beatty, A.S. (1995). Listening to chiidrenread aioud. Was hington, DC: Off ice o f Educat iona iResearch and improvement, U.S. Department o fEducation.

Rasinski , T .V. (2003). The fiuent reader. New York:Schoiastic.

Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word iearning in beginning read-e rs . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l C h i i d P s y c h o l o g y , 75,321-339.

Reutzei, D.R. (1996). Deveioping at-risk readers ' orai readingfiuenc y. In L. Putnam (Ed.), How to becom e a better read-er: Strategies for assessmen t and in te rven t ion (pp .241- 254) . Engiewood Cii f fs, NJ: Merri i i .


10/11

Samuels, S . J . (1979). The method of repeated readings. T h eReading Teacher, 32 ,403-408.Samuels, S . J . (2002 ). Reading fluency: Its development andassessment. In A . E . Farstrup & S . J . Samuels (Eds.), Whatresearch h a s to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.,p p . 166-184). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Someconsequences in individual differences in the acquisi-tion of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,360-407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

Stecker, S.K., Roser, N.L., S Martinez, M.G. (1998).Understanding oral reading fluency. In T. Shanahan &F.V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), 47th yearbook of theNational Reading Conference (pp. 295-310). Chicago:National Reading Conference.Strickland, D.S., & Schickedanz, J . (20 04 ). Learning aboutprint in preschool: Working with letters, words, a n d linkswith phonemic awareness. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.Topping, K. (1987). Paired read ing: Apowerful techniquefor parent use. T h e Reading Teacher, 40 , 608-614.

M Y D I C T I O N A R YA w o r d s p e l l in g b o o k to put the fun in t o s p e l lin g a n dI i m p r o v e l i t e r a c y s k i l l s of 6-8 y e a r o l d s t u d e n t s .

- S u n s h i n e B o o k s I n t e r n a t i o n a l L i m i t e dCanada

FREE COPY OFFERAs an exclusive offer for 'The Reading Teacher'subscribers we are offering you the chance to obtain afree copy of 'My Dictionary' for inspection. All you haveto do is visit our website www.my-dictionary.com,click on the 'contact us' link and fill in the details askingfor a free copy as advertised in 'The Reading Teacher'.You must include your school's name and address formailing - offer ends 30 April 2005.Ch e c k o u t s a m p l e p a g e s o n our w e b s i t eW W W, m y - d ic t io n a r y , c o m

only S^m X O per copy + S & HIreland Australia New Zealand

Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension 519197


11/11

Documents

Fluency Bridge between Decoding and Reading Comprehension.pdf