Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Effect of Fluency on Reading Comprehension
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education
University of Houston
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Beth Egmon
May, 2008
UMI Number: 3309545
Copyright 2008 by
Egmon, Beth
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI UMI Microform 3309545
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright
By
Beth Egmon
May, 2008
The Effect of Fluency on Reading Comprehension
A Dissertation for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Beth Egmon
Approved by Dissertation Committee:
t (f&£^ Dr. Richard F. Abrahamson, Chairperson
\£±1 erine Horn/Committee Member
Dr. Lane R. Gauthier, Committee Member
It UCr^, r>
Dr. Peter J. Gingiss, Committee Member
Dr. Lee Mountain, Committee Member
Dr. R Colle
May 2008
Acknowledgements
Harold R. McAlindon once said, "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go
instead where there is no path and leave a trail." I would like to thank all of those who
helped me leave a trail where there was no path - family, friends, coworkers, and
especially all those who served on my committee - without the support of all these, this
endeavor would not have been possible. Thank you.
iii
The Effect of Fluency on Reading Comprehension
An Abstract Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education
University of Houston
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Beth Egmon
May, 2008
Egmon, B. "The Effect of Fluency on Reading Comprehension." Unpublished Doctor of Education Dissertation, University of Houston, May, 2008.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to describe the relationship between the reading
fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students. The current literature on
fluency indicated that there is a positive relationship between reading fluency and reading
comprehension (Stecker, Roser, & Martinez, 1998). A formal study examining the
relationship between fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students was
needed at this time as the most recent studies combining fluency with comprehension
have focused on third and fifth graders (Rasinski, 1990) as well as second graders (Stahl
& Heubach, 2005). The results of the both studies indicated that fluency is a reasonable
predictor of comprehension. However, this relationship must be established in first grade
students.
The study addressed the following research question: What is the relationship
between the reading fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students? This
question was answered using a multivariate correlational research design examining first
grade students in a rural school district in the southwestern United States. The
instrumentation used was the Texas Primary Reading Inventory as it measured both
comprehension and fluency.
The study was able to establish a strong positive relationship between fluency and
comprehension in first grade students. Furthermore 17% of the variance in reading
comprehension was explained by fluency while 35.6% of the variance was explained by
the other controlling variables. The regression coefficents indicated that at-risk and
fluency are the greatest contributing factors to the changes in reading comprehension.
These findings indicated that indeed fluency instruction must be an integral part
of the first grade curriculum in order to enhance comprehension. Future research should
be conducted to determine which methods of fluency instruction make the most impact in
first graders. Meanwhile, first grade practitioners should be engaging in activities such as
buddy reading, choral reading, and repeated reading activities. It is hoped that these
findings will lead to greater awareness amongst practitioners about the importance of
fluency instruction in first grade as well as greater awareness amongst the research
community to provide evidence-based instructional methods specific for first grade
classrooms.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Need for the Study 2 Statement of the Problem 6 Purpose of the Study 6 Research Question 6 Hypothesis 7 Definition of Terms 7 Summary 8
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11
Reading in the Twentieth Century 11 Theoretical Framework 15 History of Comprehension 20 Reading Policies 24 Current Research in Comprehension 26 Current Research in Fluency 40 Intersection of Fluency and Comprehension . 53 Research on First Grade Students 58
III. METHODOLOGY 62
Research Design 62 Participants 62 Instrumentation 63 Data Collection Procedures 67 Data Analysis Procedures 67 Limitations of the Study 72
IV. RESULTS 75
Descriptive Statistics 75 The Relationship Between Fluency and
Comprehension 81
V. DISCUSSION 86
Significant Findings of the Study 86 Implications for Current Research 87 Implications for Future Research 87 Implications for Practice 88
REFERENCES 96
APPENDIX A TPRI STUDENT RECORD SHEET 119
APPENDIX B TPRI CLASS SUMMARY SHEET 131
Vll l
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Chall's Stages of Development 18
2 First Grade Student Population 2006-2007 64
3 Variables 68
4 First Grade Student Sample 76
5 Descriptive Statistics 78
6 Frequencies for Beginning of Year 79
7 Frequencies for End of Year 80
8 Correlation Matrix for Difference in Total Reading Comprehension, Age, Educational Status, Economic Status, and Difference In Fluency 81
9 Ethnicity by At-Risk Cross Tabulation 82
10 Multiple Regression Analysis of the Relationship Between Reading Comprehension, Gender, Ethnicity, Age, Educational Status, Migrant, At-Risk, LEP, Economic Status, and Fluency 84
11 First Grade Oral Reading Fluency Norms 89
12 Oral Reading Fluency Scale 91
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction 37
x
Introduction. Chapter One
Introduction
In 1967, Bond and Dykstra published their landmark First Grade Studies where
they determined that the key factor to a first grader's reading success was his/her teacher.
They did not find one specific method for the classroom teacher to utilize. Since then,
many studies have been done in an effort to find the key to reading success. However, as
the International Reading Association acknowledged in its 1999 position statement, no
one method of reading instruction is guaranteed to work with every child (Rasinski &
Padak, 2000).
When examining the best methods of reading instruction, a savvy instructor first
examines the purpose of reading. The purpose of reading is comprehension (Bender &
Larkin, 2003) and like any other skill, it must be taught and must be practiced. Inasmuch
as the purpose for reading is comprehension, instructors seek to find the most effective
methods for improving comprehension. The National Reading Panel (2000) concluded
that fluency was closely associated with comprehension. In fact, Pikulski and Chard
(2005) defined fluency and pointed out its link to comprehension when they stated
reading fluency refers to efficient, effective word-recognition skills that
permit a reader to construct the meaning of text. Fluency is manifested in
accurate, rapid, expressive oral reading and is applied during, and makes
possible, silent reading comprehension. (Pikulski & Chard, 2005, p. 510)
Thus, to improve comprehension, one must increase fluency. Rasinski and Padak
(2000) pointed out that "reading fluency is a significant obstacle to proficient reading for
elementary students and many older readers experiencing difficulty in learning to read"
2
(Rasinski & Padak, 2000, p. 104). In 1983, Richard Allington published "Fluency: The
Neglected Reading Goal" in The Reading Teacher where he contended that reading
fluency as a skill was not being taught. Thirteen years later in 1996, Rasinski and Zutell
looked at current reading programs and discovered that Allington's warnings about
fluency being overlooked had not been heeded. Fluency was being ignored as part of the
reading instructional process.
Need for the Study
Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(2002), students must be reading on
grade-level by third grade. Thus it is incumbent upon the first and second grade teachers
to have the students reading on grade level at those respective primary grades as well. It
is evident, however, that not all students are reading on grade level at this time; in fact,
not even a majority are reading on grade level. The Nation's Report Card for Reading is
based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) which is given to
grades four and eight. The NAEP measures reading comprehension in three contexts of
reading: reading for literary experience, reading for information, and reading to perform
a task (Lee, Grigg & Donahue, 2007). The NAEP achievement levels are basic,
proficient, and advanced. The Nation's Report Card for Reading in 2007 indicated that
only 41 percent of fourth graders and 34 percent of eighth graders were reading at
proficient or advanced levels. 67 percent of fourth graders and 74 percent of eighth
graders were reading at or just above basic level. "Basic denotes partial mastery of
prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at a given
grade" (Lee, Grigg & Donahue, 2007, p. 6). (Note: Percentages do not equal 100
percent because of rounding.) Furthermore, Juel (1988) found that "a child would remain
3
a poor reader at the end of fourth grade if the child was a poor reader at the end of first
grade" (Juel, 1988, p. 437).
The problem becomes further complicated when examining the National
Endowment for the Arts' (NEA) Research Report entitled To Read or Not To Read: A
Question of National Consequence (2007). In this report, NEA pointed out three
alarming conclusions: (1) "Americans are spending less time reading. (2) Reading
comprehension skills are eroding. (3) These declines have serious civic, social, cultural,
and economic implications" (NEA, 2007, p. 7). The NEA report discussed the
implications of these trends and pointed out that "employers now rank reading and
writing as top deficiencies in new hires" (NEA, 2007, p. 16).
With that many students reading below grade level and less and less time being
devoted to reading, the question becomes what can be done instructionally to help the
nation's students become better readers. The National Reading Panel (2000) cited five
components of reading that need to be in place in order for reading to occur: phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. Of these five components,
"fluency has been shown to have a 'reciprocal relationship' with comprehension, with
each fostering the other" (Stecker, Roser, & Martinez, 1998, p. 306).
This reciprocal relationship between fluency and comprehension has brought
these reading components to the forefront of the literacy community. Beginning in 1997,
Jack Cassidy, former president of the International Reading Association, has led the
annual publication of a survey in Reading Today entitled "What's Hot, What's Not." His
team continues to survey twenty-five notable literacy leaders throughout the world to
determine the hot topics in the field of literacy. When the survey was first released in
4
1997, fluency was not even considered a topic and comprehension was considered to be
"not hot" (Cassidy & Wenrich, 1997, p. 34). By 2000, the survey indicated that
comprehension was "not hot" but "should be hot" (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2000, p. 28). It
wasn't until 2003 that fluency arrived on the scene. In 2003, survey respondents
indicated that fluency was a "very hot" topic and comprehension was a "hot" topic as
well (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2003, p. 18). From 2004-2006, both fluency and
comprehension were "very hot" topics (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2004, p. 3; Cassidy &
Cassidy, 2005, p. 8; Cassidy & Cassidy, 2006, p. 8). The 2007 survey indicated that
fluency was still a "very hot" topic and comprehension was a "hot" topic. Furthermore,
respondents for the 2007 survey indicated that fluency "should be very hot" and
comprehension "should be extremely hot" (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2007, p. 10).
Respondents for the 2008 survey indicated that fluency was again a "very hot" topic and
comprehension was not only "hot" but "should be extremely hot" (Cassidy & Cassidy,
2008, p. 10).
Comprehension continues to be an extremely hot issue due to the evolving needs
of literacy. Coiro and Dobler (2007) discussed this new literacies perspective.
According to this new literacies perspective, reading comprehension
becomes an important issue to study (Coiro, 2003 a) because new
comprehension skills, strategies, and dispositions may be required to
generate questions, and to locate, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate
information on the Internet (Leu et al., 2004). Similarly, this perspective
posits that traditional reading skills are necessary, but not sufficient, to read
and learn from information on the Internet. (Coiro & Dobler, 2007, pp. 217-
5
218)
The necessary traditional reading skills referenced above include those reading
skills that allow students to comprehend, generate questions, locate, evaluate, synthesize,
and communicate information. In order to comprehend, the current literature on fluency
indicated that there is a positive relationship between reading fluency and reading
comprehension. In a 1990 study, Rasinski used a correlational research design to
examine that relationship between fluency and comprehension in seventy-seven third
grade students and sixty-five fifth grade students in a large Midwestern city. His findings
indicated that fluency is a reasonable predictor of comprehension in third and fifth
graders (Rasinski, 1990). A study by Stahl and Heubach (2005) indicated that fluency-
oriented reading instruction leads to gains in comprehension in second grade students.
Using a pretest-posttest design, researchers discovered that students who received
fluency-oriented reading instruction made "significantly more than 1 year's reading
growth in one school year" (Stahl & Heubach, 2005, p. 190).
At this time, the research indicates there is a relationship between the reading
fluency and reading comprehension of students and the Rasinski (1990) study along with
the Stahl and Heubach (2005) study are indicative of the nature of that relationship in
second, third and fifth grade students. A formal study indicating the nature of the
relationship between fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students is needed
at this time as the most recent studies combining fluency with comprehension have
focused on second, third and fifth graders. However, at this critical juncture it is
imperative that the nature of the relationship between the reading fluency and reading
comprehension of first grade students be determined. This information is crucial for
6
practitioners who are developing instructional plans that will most significantly impact
reading comprehension of first graders.
Statement of the Problem
The National Reading Panel (2000) cited numerous studies throughout its report
indicating that there is a positive relationship between reading fluency and reading
comprehension, especially in upper elementary, secondary and adult readers. However,
no studies were cited in their report specific to first grade. Furthermore, in order to
determine how much instructional time should be devoted to reading fluency instruction,
one needs to know how strong the relationship is between reading fluency and reading
comprehension. The relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension of
first grade students is unclear. This study determined that relationship and will thus
allow first grade practitioners to make essential instructional decisions that will impact
student reading.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to describe the relationship between reading fluency
and reading comprehension of first grade students.
Research Question
As stated earlier, the purpose of the study was to describe the relationship
between reading fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students. Given this
purpose, the study addressed the following research question: What is the relationship
between reading fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students?
7
Hypotheses
Null Hypothesis. The research question posed in the previous section of this
paper is the basis for the following null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant
relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students.
Directional Research Hypothesis. In April 2000, the Report of the National
Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read was released in which the panel concluded
that fluency was closely associated with comprehension and teachers needed to be aware
of this so that they could teach for fluency to improve comprehension (National Institute
of Child Health & Human Development - Report of the National Reading Panel:
Teaching Children to Read website, Fluency subsection). The National Reading Panel
cited a study by Pinnell, Pikulski, Wixson, Campbell, Gough, and Beatty (1995), which
indicated that 44% of the fourth and fifth grade students sampled were dysfluent readers.
Furthermore, this dysfiuency resulted in students having difficulty with comprehending
the text that they were reading (Fluency subsection). Grace Oakley concurred with the
findings of the panel but reported that the nature of the relationship between fluency and
comprehension remained unclear (Oakley, 2003, Fluency section). Inasmuch as the
aforementioned literature in this proposal suggests that there is a positive relationship
between reading fluency and reading comprehension, this study will test the following
directional research hypothesis: There is a statistically significant positive relationship
between reading fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students.
Definitions of Terms
Automaticity. The word "automaticity" is defined as "fluent processing of
information that requires little effort or attention, as sight-word recognition" (Harris &
8
Hodges, 1995, p. 16). This occurs when a reader can read so well he or she does not have
to think about the individual words. The reader can then think about other things, such as
comprehension of text.
Decoding. The word "decoding" is defined as "to determine what sounds
particular letters make to decipher words" (Bender & Larkin, 2003, p. 212). Decoding is
very prevalent in beginning readers who are trying to decide what a word is by sounding
it out.
Prosody. The word "prosody" is defined as "the pitch, loudness, tempo, and
rhythm patterns of spoken language" (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 196). Prosody is more
commonly referred to as reading with expression.
Reading Fluency. The phrase "reading fluency" is defined as involving
"accurate reading of connected text at a conversational rate with appropriate prosody or
expression" (Hudson, Lane & Pullen, 2005, p. 702). Thus, when considering a reader's
fluency, one looks at accuracy, rate (speed), and prosody (expression).
Reading Comprehension. The phrase "reading comprehension" is defined as
"the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning" (Snow & Sweet,
2003, p. 1). Reading comprehension is actually thinking about the text and making
meaning out of it.
Summary
The Nation's Report Card for Reading in 2007 indicated that the reading
comprehension of a majority of 4l and 8th graders was below grade level. Educators
must look to research to see how best to improve the comprehension of the nation's
9
readers. Research indicated that there is a positive relationship between reading fluency
and reading comprehension in students as young as second grade.
According to the world's literacy leaders, fluency and comprehension not only
continue to be very hot topics in the field of literacy, they should be very hot topics.
With the increasing demands in the field of informational literacy, reading
comprehension is more important than ever.
As mentioned earlier, this study described the relationship between reading
fluency and reading comprehension in first grade students. From this, educators will be
able to determine whether or not fluency has a significant impact upon reading
comprehension in first grade students. Furthermore, as Shanahan (2002) points out, the
value in the research is also the ensuing discussion. Once the research is complete, there
will be more empirical data for first grade teachers to formulate their thoughts and
language arts curriculum decisions. If the empirical evidence holds, and there is indeed a
significant relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension the
implications for first grade language arts curriculum are exciting. With proper alterations
in curriculum and appropriate focus on increasing reading fluency, reading
comprehension will increase as well. First grade students will be on their way to reading
on grade level and being successful life-long learners.
This chapter has outlined the need for the study, the statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, as well as stated the research question, the null hypothesis, the
directional research hypothesis, and provided definitions of key terms. The next chapter,
Chapter Two, will review the literature in terms of historical background of reading
education, theoretical framework of comprehension and fluency, historical background of
10
comprehension and fluency, reading policies, current research developments in reading
comprehension and fluency, the intersection of fluency and comprehension, as well as the
need for the study with first grade students.
Review of the Literature. Chapter Two
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to describe the relationship between the reading
fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students. Given this purpose, the study
addressed the following research question: What is the relationship between the reading
fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students? This study tested the
following directional research hypothesis: There is a statistically significant positive
relationship between the reading fluency and reading comprehension of first grade
students. Chapter One introduced the research question and directional research
hypotheses as well as outlined the need for the study. Chapter Two will review the
literature in terms of historical background of reading education, theoretical framework
of comprehension and fluency, historical background of comprehension and fluency,
reading policies, current research developments in reading comprehension and fluency,
the intersection of fluency and comprehension, as well as the need for the study with first
grade students.
Reading in the twentieth century
The so-called reading wars are not new. In fact, debate about reading instruction
occurred throughout the twentieth century in the United States. During the 1920s, the
controversial topics included the value of silent reading over oral reading. Another
controversial topic was whole word instruction as opposed to phonics instruction.
Educators also warned about the dangers of teaching the alphabet before teaching words.
A strong testing movement and development of standardized reading assessments to
determine reading readiness for formal instruction marked the period from 1920 to 1940.
12
During the 1930s and 1940s, whole word instruction (also known as "look-say") was
prevalent in many American classrooms. "By repeatedly encountering the same words in
text, children were expected to learn to recognize entire words without attending to
phonics or decoding strategies" (Quick, 1998, p. 255). During the 1930s, reading
instruction was considered its own discipline, little or no effort was made "to relate
instruction in reading to other curriculum fields or indeed to provide guidance in the
reading activities carried on in them" (Brueckner, 1939, p. 284).
Prior to 1960, the primary method of reading instruction in the United States was
the basal reader approach.
In response to a national survey of instructional practices in reading
conducted by Ralph Steiger (1958), 69% of the respondents reported using
one basal series, 20% reported using two basals, and 11% reported using
three or more basals. That, as you can see, adds up to 100% of the respondents
reporting that they used basals. (Graves & Dykstra, 1997, p. 342)
However, in 1955, Flesch published Why Johnny Can't Read and attacked the
basal approach to reading instruction. He challenged whole word instruction indicating
that sight reading methods were not helping children read. Rather, he advocated a return
to a phonics approach (Graves & Dykstra, 1997).
In the 1960s, Chall began analyzing reading programs and teacher performance as
well as surveying the research on reading. The result was Learning to read: The great
debate (1967). Chall examined two schools of thought in reading instruction: whole
word instruction and phonics instruction. Chall's research indicated that for long-term
results, phonics instruction is clearly better than whole word instruction. Phonics
13
instruction resulted in better word attack skills that were beneficial to students as they
faced unknown words in later years. While whole word instruction was beneficial in the
early years, students lacked the word attack skills necessary to transition to independent
reading.
As mentioned in Chapter One, Bond and Dykstra (1967) published their landmark
First Grade Studies where they determined that the key factor to a first grader's reading
success was his/her teacher. They were unable to isolate any specific teaching
methodologies that were preferable in aiding reading instruction. Bond and Dykstra
concluded that children learn by a variety of methods of instruction and a combination of
approaches developed by a child's teacher is best.
The 1970s brought the whole language philosophy of teaching reading. Whole
language advocates believed that "critical skills like phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, reading fluency, and comprehension strategies can be learned through
exposure to reading and writing activities, not through systematic instruction"
(Blaunstein & Lyon, 2006, p. 5). The role of the whole language teacher was to provide
discovery learning opportunities for the students.
Basically, children are expected to learn phonics and other basic reading
skills on their own with only minimal guidance from the teacher. Many
advocates of whole language actually believe that too much phonics
instruction is harmful to children, that it will turn them into "word callers"
and will destroy their love for reading. The role of the whole language
teacher is to help students "discover" how our writing system works
without providing systematic instruction. Their goal for reading instruction
14
is to instill a love of reading, not the ability to read, seemingly without the
realization that the latter is the pathway to the former. (Blaunstein & Lyon,
2006, p. 5)
Whole-language became the primary focus of reading instruction by the 1990s.
California and Texas were the two largest states adopting basal readers. Because of the
move towards whole language, these two states insisted that textbook publishers begin
publishing books with literature components (Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald,
Block & Morrow, 2001, p. 18). However, during the 1990s, the reading wars erupted
pitting whole language against basic skills instruction. What emerged was a call for
balancing skills instruction and whole language components.
In addition, there was increasing appreciation that the most respected and
respectable of the scholars documenting the need for skills instruction
argued that such instruction should be accompanied by immersion in
literature and composing, with Marilyn Adams (1990) and Jeanne Chall
(1967/1983) both making such a case. A recent National Research Council
panel, which argued in its final report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), that the scientific
literature favored skills instruction in beginning reading, also made the case
that such instruction should occur in the context of extensive reading of real
literature and writing. (Pressley et al., 2001, p. 25)
In summation, reading instruction in the twentieth century has been marked by
controversy. The 1920s saw the debate over silent reading versus oral reading. During
the 1920s to 1940s the debates raged over whole word instruction ("look-say") versus
15
phonics instruction. Prior to the 1960s basal readers became popular. During the 1970s
whole language became popular, despite the cries for a phonics approach; but by the
1990s balanced literacy emerged, balancing skills instruction and whole language
components.
Theoretical Framework
Fluency
"The word fluency comes from the Latin fluens, meaning to flow. Hence, oral
reading fluency is generally described as flowing, smooth, and effortless" (Moskal &
Blachowicz, 2006, pp. 2-3). There are two major theories used to describe fluency's role
in reading: the theory of automatic information processing (or automaticity) and the
theory of prosody. Automaticity occurs when a reader is able to decode to a high enough
level of automatic information processing that he or she can focus on creating meaning
from text (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Nicholson and Tan (1999) provided the example
of walking.
Anyone who has watched 2-year-olds walking knows that they have
definitely not yet overlearned this skill. They still put mental effort into
walking. They look where they are walking, learn to adjust their pace, and
so on. But walking, for the adult, requires no conscious attention - except
as Samuels (1976) pointed out, when the ground is icy and attention must
be used to avoid falling. In addition, while walking, the mind can be
thinking about something else other than the process of walking. This is
another aspect of automaticity. The mastery of one skill to the point of
16
effortlessness enables you to do something else at the same time. (Nicholsan &
Tan, 1999, pp. 151-152)
Automaticity is emphasized because it is the key to comprehension. "Humans have only
so much cognitive capacity to devote to a particular task. In cognitive psychology, this is
known as the assumption of limited processing capacity, or limited cognitive resources"
(Nathan & Stanovich, 1991, p. 176).
"When children learn to recognize many words automatically and to read grade-
level text at a reasonable rate, their oral reading still many not sound 'natural,' because
they do not yet read with expression - or prosody" (Osborn, Lehr, & Hiebert, 2003, p. 5).
Prosody occurs when a reader can read with appropriate expression and phrasing
(Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003). There are six basic components of prosodic reading:
"pausal intrusions, length of phrases, appropriateness of phrases, final phrase
lengthening, terminal intonation countours, and stress" (Kuhn & Stahl, 2002, p. 5).
Another important model is Keith Stanovich's Interactive-Compensatory model
where Stanovich (1986) describes the number of interactions a reader has with text.
The effect of reading volume on vocabulary growth, combined with the large skill
differences in reading volume, could mean that a "rich-get-richer" or cumulative
advantage phenomenon is almost inextricably embedded within the
developmental course of reading progress. The very children who are reading
well and who have good vocabularies will read more, learn more word meanings,
and hence read even better. Children with inadequate vocabularies - who read
slowly and without enjoyment - read less, and as a result have slower
development of vocabulary knowledge, which inhibits further growth in reading
17
available. Walberg (Walberg et al., 1984; Walberg & Tsai, 1983), following
Merton (1968), has dubbed those educational sequences where early achievement
spawns faster rates of subsequent achievement "Matthew effects," after the
Gospel according to Matthew: "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and
he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even
that which he hath (XXV:29)." (Stanovich, 1986, p. 381)
The Matthew effect becomes more pronounced when one takes into account the
difference in reading volume between avid and reluctant readers. Students who read on
average ninety minutes per day, read 4.7 million words annually as opposed to students
that read on average two minutes per day. Their annual number of words read amounts
to 51,000 (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988, p. 292).
Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004) contended that fluency is a key element of
reading for primary students (p. 50). According to Minskoff (2005), fluency refers to
"both a stage of learning to read and a distinct set of reading skills" (p. 122). Chall
(1978) best described this stage of learning. Chall based her work on the work of Piaget
as she proposed the stages of reading development described in Table 1. While
confirmation and fluency is stage two of Chall's model, Fountas and Pinnell (2006)
pointed out that fluency is more than just a stage or a label. Rather, it is a "characteristic
of effective reading at every level" (p. 74) and in fact changes depending upon the
context.
To review, in terms of fluency, the theory of automaticity by LaBerge and
Samuels (1974) and the theory of prosody as described by Rasinski and Hoffman (2003)
are key. In order for one to become fluent, one must spend time with text. This is
addressed by Stanovich's (1986) Interactive-Compensatory model. Fluency is a
developmental process as described by Chall's stages of reading development.
Table 1
Chall's Stages Of Development
Stage Title Age Description
Prereading Birth to Age 6
Initial Reading, or Grades 1, Ages 6-7
Decoding
Confirmation and End of Grade 1 to
Fluency end of Grade 3,
Ages 7-8
Learning the New Grades 4-8,
Ages 9-13
Multiple High School,
Viewpoints Ages 14-18
Construction and College,
Reconstruction Ages 18 and above
Phonemic awareness, print
concepts, letter knowledge,
vocabulary and syntax
Sound - symbol
correspondence
Decodes fluently, moves to
more complex text, confirms
what is already known
Students are reading to learn
rather than learning to read
Synthesizing
Weigh and add information
from text to world view
Note. Adapted from Chall (1978).
19
Comprehension
One major theoretical framework applied to reading comprehension is schema
theory. Reading comprehension depends on acquired knowledge and how it fits into
one's schema (Duffy, Roehler & Mason, 1984).
Reading is seen as an active process of constructing meaning by connecting old
knowledge with new information encountered in text. Readers build meaning by
engaging in a series of recursive interactions. In each interaction readers generate
a model that provides the best possible fit with the data perceived to be in the text
. . . . Gradually, iteration by iteration, readers construct their own meaning.
(Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992, p. 149)
A study led by Stahl (1989) addressed the issue of prior knowledge when the reader
encounters difficult vocabulary in unfamiliar text. "According to schema theory, the
reader's background knowledge serves as scaffolding to aid in encoding information
from the text. Thus, a person with more background knowledge is able to comprehend
better than a person with less knowledge" (Stahl, Jacobson, Davis, & Davis, 1989, pp.
284-285).
Louise Rosenblatt (1978) described her transactional theory of literacy work
wherein the reader actually has a transaction with the text. The foundation of her theory
is that a "text, once it leaves its author's hands, is simply paper and ink until a reader
evokes from it a literary work . . . " (p. ix). Rosenblatt further contended that reading
processes, such as comprehension, occur during this transaction.
A person becomes a reader by virtue of his activity in relationship to a
text, which he organizes as a set of verbal symbols. A physical text, a set
20
of marks on a page, becomes the text of a poem or of a scientific formula
by virtue of its relationship with a reader who can thus interpret it and
reach through it to the world of the work. (Rosenblatt, 1978, pp. 18-19)
To conclude, two major theoretical frameworks are important when discussing
reading comprehension. One is schema theory and how prior knowledge fits into one's
schema. The other theory is Rosenblatt's transactional theory of literacy work.
History of Comprehension
Prior to 1826, an early view of the reading process followed what is known as the
memoriter model. In this model, decoding was the focus of beginning reading
instruction. Meaningful text was not introduced to the reader until decoding was
mastered. The only text considered to be comprehensible text for the student was
decodable text. The memoriter model also involved the acquisition of a sight vocabulary.
This facilitated comprehension. Comprehension was also aided by the rote memorization
of text. Comprehension mastery by the student was indicated when the student could
communicate the written text effectively through oral reading (Robinson, Faraone,
Hittleman, & Unruh, 1990).
The interlocking and step-by-step models of reading comprehension marked the
mid-nineteenth century. The interlocking model described three stages of reading:
mechanical reading (sight words, decoding, oral reading exercises), intellectual reading
(reading fast for meaning), and rhetorical reading (expressive reading). The interlocking
piece that made the entire process work was comprehension.
Preparation for the meaning of the text not only assisted in one's mastery of the
mechanics of reading, but also enabled the reader to comprehend the text through
21
independent silent reading, culminating eventually in expressive reading - the
final goal of the reading act. (Robinson, et al., 1990, p. 23)
The step-by-step model was similar to the interlocking model. It included the same three
stages of reading (mechanical, intellectual, and rhetorical). However, under the step-by-
step model, the components of reading and learning occurred one step at a time. First one
learned mechanical reading, then one could engage in intellectual reading. Finally, one
could read rhetorically (Robinson, et al., 1990).
The pendulum swung towards the end of the nineteenth century, which was
marked by the thought-getting model of the reading process.
In this model (1) reading presupposes life experiences; (2) reading is primarily a
receptive process (i.e., silent reading) with thought-getting (i.e., thinking) as its
goal - a process that involves perceiving text instantaneously (i.e., written or
printed words arranged in sentences), associating text with spoken words, and
relating these ideas into thought; and (3) reading becomes an expressive act (i.e.,
oral reading) through thought-giving, when the thought acquired is shared with
others. (Robinson, et al., 1990, p. 48)
By 1917, Gray indicated that the way to improve reading comprehension was
through silent reading. Gray suggested that prior knowledge improves comprehension
along with knowledge of the elements upon which meaning depends, such as syntax.
Gray also contended that fast readers are usually better at comprehension than slow
readers (Gray, 1917).
The debate in the 1970s and early 1980s centered around whether or not reading
comprehension was a "top down" or "bottom up" process. Those that contended that
22
reading comprehension was a "top down" process believed that the reader relied on his or
her background knowledge and ability to make decisions about the meaning of text.
Those that contended that reading comprehension was a "bottom up" process believed
that the reader relied on visual data for comprehension, focusing on letters, words and
sentences (Samuels, & Kamil, 1984).
In the late 1970s, Rumelhart introduced the interactive model of reading, blurring
the distinction between decoding and comprehension, indicating that each interacts with
the other.
In Rumelhart's model, the reader processes factors like letter features and
sounds (referred to as bottom-up factors) at the same time as factors like his
or her knowledge of the topic of the text and the situation in which it is read
(referred to as top-down factors). This interactive model, therefore,
suggests that reading involves simultaneous parallel processing of both
bottom-up and top-down factors. The model proposes that the weight given
to particular factors, whether top-down or bottom-up, will depend on
characteristics of the reader (such as decoding ability), the text (such as
familiarity of topics), and the context or environment in which the reading
takes place. Thus, the importance of top-down and bottom-up factors will
differ from reader to reader, text to text, and situation to situation. (Maria,
1990, p. 5)
Another interactive model was introduced in 1979 by Kintsch. The Kintsch
model assumed that comprehension was a complex process and that these processes
could operate either in serial or parallel. It specified three types of operations.
23
First, the meaning elements of a text are organized into a coherent whole.
During this stage of processing, some elements are subjected to multiple
processing which, in turn, leads to better differential retention among the
text elements. Second, another set of operations compresses the full
meaning of the text into its gist. The third component generates new texts
from the memorial consequences of the comprehension processes. The
ultimate goal of this model is to be able to specify how a text is processed
sentence by sentence and to specify the outputs of the various stages of
comprehension. (Samuels & Kamil, 1984, p. 216)
By 1980, Stanovich introduced his interactive-compensatory model of reading.
The compensatory assumption states that a deficit in any knowledge source
results in a heavier reliance on other knowledge sources, regardless of their
level in the processing hierarchy. Thus, according to the interactive-
compensatory model, the poor reader who has deficient word analysis skills
might possibly show a greater reliance on contextual factors. (Stanovich, 1980, p.
64)
Through this process, a reader can compensate for their deficiencies by applying "top
down" processing and "bottom up" processing.
That is, if a person were reading a particularly difficult text that challenged his
ability to decode, but he had a great deal of background knowledge about the
topic, he could compensate for his decoding deficiencies by relying on top-down
processes to successfully comprehend the text. (Almasi, 2003, p. 74)
24
To sum up, prior to 1826, it was believed that the only comprehensible text was
decodable text. This was known as the memoriter model. By the mid-nineteenth
century, the interlocking and step-by-step models took hold. By the end of the nineteenth
century the thought-getting model of the reading process was becoming popular and
involved reading as a receptive process. By 1917, Gray suggested prior knowledge
improved comprehension. But the debate by the 1970s and 1980s centered around "top
down" and "bottom up" models. A combination of the two found its way into three
interactive models by Rumelhart, Kintsch and Stanovich.
Reading Policies
In 1967, Bond and Dykstra published their landmark First Grade Studies where
they determined that the key factor to a first grader's reading success was his/her teacher.
They were unable to isolate any specific teaching methodologies that were preferable in
aiding reading instruction. From that time forward, there were a plethora of government
acts and actions that impacted reading instruction - ranging from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 1971 to the federal reports of the early
1980s knows as A Nation at Risk and Becoming a Nation of Readers (Allington &
McGill-Granzen, 2000). But historically, fluency has been overlooked. Fluency did not
receive enough attention for several reasons, including
the prevalence of strategies designed for individual instruction (Kuhn, 2003), an
assumption that increased amounts of decoding instruction would automatically
lead to improved fluency, (Allington, 1983; Fleisher, Jenkins, & Pany,
1979/1980), and reliance on round-robin reading as one of the primary approaches
for oral reading instruction. (Ash, Kuhn, & Walpole, 2003, p. 338)
25
This was true until the Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to
Read was issued in April 2000 and found that fluency and comprehension were uniquely
tied together and were key factors in determining reading success (National Institute of
Child Health & Human Development (NICHD), 2000, p. 3-3). Further research by Kuhn
and Stahl (2003) pushed fluency to the forefront.
In examining the research on fluency, the National Reading Panel examined both
guided oral reading procedures and repeated readings to ascertain their effectiveness on
fluency development. "These two procedures have been widely recommended as
appropriate and valuable avenues for increasing fluency and overall reading
achievement" (NICHD, 2000, p. 3-28). The Panel further found that "comprehension is
critically important to the development of children's reading skills and therefore to the
ability to obtain an education" (NICHD, 2000, p. 4-1). In examining the research on
comprehension, the National Reading Panel focused on 205 studies in sixteen categories
of instruction. They concluded that only seven strategies appear to have a scientific basis
upon which one can reasonably conclude that with proper instruction the comprehension
of "normal" readers will improve. These strategies include: comprehension monitoring,
cooperative learning, use of graphic organizers, question generation, question answering
and summarization, and multiple strategies (NICHD, 2000). While the Report of the
National Reading Panel has come under much criticism, the sections on fluency and
comprehension have remained relatively unscathed (Garan, 2002). Hiebert and Fisher
(2005) did point out, however, that 75% of the texts used in the fluency studies utilized
controlled vocabulary, as opposed to current basals that have "substantially more rare
26
words, and approximately 70% of these words appear a single time" (Hiebert & Fisher,
2005, p. 443).
As a result of the work of the National Reading Panel, Congress enacted the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which emphasized reading instruction. Under
NCLB, Congress mandated "access of children to effective, scientifically based
instructional strategies and challenging academic content" (115 STAT. 1441). NCLB
also mandated that schools must meet adequate yearly progress, and the law delineated
the conditions under which each school could meet adequate yearly progress. Another
key initiative of NCLB was the Reading First grants which were developed to
provide assistance to State educational agencies and local educational agencies in
establishing reading programs for students in kindergarten through grade 3 that
are based on scientifically based reading research, to ensure that every student can
read at grade level or above not later than the end of grade 3. (115 STAT. 1535)
In summation, prior to 2000, fluency was largely overlooked in the reading
policies of the United States. However, the Report of the National Reading Panel:
Teaching Children to Read found that fluency and comprehension were uniquely tied
together. Because of the work of the National Reading Panel, Congress enacted NCLB
mandating scientifically based instruction. Fluency and consequently comprehension
were coming to the forefront of American education.
Current Research in Comprehension
In 2000, the RAND Reading Study Group (RRSG) was formed to make
recommendations about how the Department of Education might make better decisions
about the research it funds. The RRSG focused on reading comprehension and suggested
27
that future research should focus on instruction, teacher preparation and professional
development, and assessment. Furthermore, the RRSG recommended a "targeted
research agenda that is sustainable, sizable, and cumulative" (Sweet & Snow, 2002, p.
46). The RRSG defined reading comprehension as
the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through
interaction and involvement with written language. In brief, understanding
comprehension requires these elements: the reader, the text, and the
activity, or purpose for reading. These elements define a phenomenon -
reading comprehension - that occurs within a larger sociocultural context
that shapes and is shaped by the reader. The broader context infuses each
of the three elements. (Snow & Sweet, 2003, p. 10)
There are three levels in the hierarchy of comprehension: literal comprehension,
interpretation, and critical evaluation. Literal comprehension involves comprehension of
the specific details of the text and comprises the lowest level in the hierarchy. The
middle level is interpretation and involves thinking about what is implied in the text.
Skills in this level include inferencing, generalizing, drawing conclusions, predicting, and
perceiving relationships (Schwartz, 1988). The highest level in the hierarchy of
comprehension is critical evaluation and occurs when "the reader evaluates written
material by measuring it against some evidence or standard and then making a judgment
about its veracity, accuracy, and quality" (Schwartz, 1988, p. 184).
The purpose of reading is comprehension (Bender & Larkin, 2003) and like any
other skill, it must be taught and must be practiced. In determining how to teach
comprehension skills, it is useful to examine the comprehension skills of good readers.
28
Block and Israel (2005) reported on six research-based findings that describe the thinking
processes used by expert readers when comprehending. First, good readers not only set a
purpose for reading but they also apply what has been read to their own lives. Second,
good readers use their own comprehension process when faced with textual confusion.
These processes include predicting, drawing conclusions, summarizing, and inferring.
Third, good readers make inferences, draw conclusions, create visual images, and engage
in metacognition. Fourth, good readers rely on prior knowledge to help make meaning
when encountering unfamiliar text. Fifth, good readers use text features, story structure
and graphic organizers to help make meaning. Finally, good readers generate and answer
questions to help with meaning-making (Block & Israel, 2005). All of these mean that
good readers monitor their comprehension when reading (Pearson, Roehler, Dole &
Duffy, 1992).
Applegate, Quinn, and Applegate (2006) described the profiles of eight cognitive
approaches students utilize when discussing what they have read. Literalists believe that
the answers to all questions will be found in the text. Fuzzy Thinkers answer all
questions but their reasoning is often vague and ambiguous. Left Fielders have
unpredictable responses and those responses will often seem incoherent or illogical. Quiz
Contestants tend to rely on their background knowledge to answer questions but will not
utilize any information from the text that was just read. Politicians will answer questions
by providing the answer they think the teacher wants to hear, even if it has little to do
with the text. Dodgers actually avoid answering the question and will change the
question to something that they prefer answering. Authors will add more details to the
story than was actually in the text, as they prefer their own version of the story.
29
Minimalists provide short responses and are unwilling to elaborate and explain their
thinking (Applegate, et al., 2006).
By understanding the profiles of the eight approaches readers utilize when
comprehending text, teachers can begin to make sound instructional decisions about
methodologies to use in teaching comprehension strategies. Barton and Sawyer (2003)
point out that "given the great diversity of written materials available to readers, the act
of comprehension is by nature so sophisticated that no single instructional method can be
sufficient for all readers with all texts in all learning situations" (p. 334). Barton and
Sawyer described six instructional touchstones that could be used to aid in a student's
comprehension development. These include providing repeated exposure to a variety of
texts, helping the student make reader / text connections, providing opportunities for
focused student responses through writing, talking, and drawing, directly teaching the
various comprehension strategies, providing visual structures, and assisting students in
developing their metacognition when reading (Barton and Sawyer, 2003).
There are a plethora of strategies that can be used to aid in the development of
comprehension. One such strategy is the teaching of story grammar, which provides a
cognitive structure for helping student identify the important parts of a story. In a study
by Williams (2005), the researcher found that when primary students were given explicit,
direct instruction about text structures, gains were made in comprehension. A second
strategy involves the use of student think-alouds that helps readers monitor their thinking
and thus improve their comprehension. Other strategies involve question answering,
summarization, and improvisational drama (Bender & Larkin, 2003). Teachers can also
ask strategic questions about context clues thus helping students begin to self-monitor
30
when encountering unfamiliar text. Teachers should also model using textual and visual
clues to make predictions about the text. Activating prior knowledge, also known as
frontloading, can help students identify a schema in which to put the new knowledge
gleaned from the text. Students should also be taught to skim texts strategically (Bishop,
Reyes & Pflaum, 2006). Minskoff (2005) pointed out that some basic guidelines should
be followed when providing reading comprehension instruction. Explicit instruction
should be provided at pre-reading, actual reading and post-reading phases and a
multisensory approach should be used. Reading comprehension should be fun and
motivating and as such, different formats should be used for teacher questions and
student responses. When providing strategy instruction, teachers should instruct students
to become actively engaged with the reading material (Minskoff, 2005).
In the primary grades, the goal of comprehension instruction is to "build readers'
thinking processes so that they can read a text with understanding, construct memory and
metacognitive representations of what they understand, and put their new understandings
to use when communicating with others" (Block, Rodgers & Johnson, 2004, p. 4). One
of the ways this can be done is through the Talking Drawings strategy. This strategy
allows primary children to draw pictures of their current content knowledge about a
particular topic prior to reading. Then, after reading a given text and discussing with a
partner, the children are allowed to revise their drawing. By examining the pre-and post-
reading artwork, the teacher can see what advances were made in student knowledge
(Paquette, Fello, & Jalongo, 2007). Another strategy helpful for primary students is a
manipulation strategy. "Having young readers manipulate objects to correspond to the
31
characters and actions in a text greatly enhances comprehension as measured by both
recall and inference tests" (Glenberg, Brown & Levin, 2007, p. 389).
Comprehension instruction is not unique to primary students however; it is an
integral part of the curriculum throughout a student's education, especially as reading
demands increase in the upper grades (Duffy, 2003). "Research has shown that many
children who read at the third grade level in grade 3 will not automatically become
proficient comprehenders in later grades. Therefore, teachers must teach comprehension
explicitly, beginning in the primary grades and continuing through high school" (Bishop,
Reyes & Pflaum, p. 66). Dymock (2007) and Pressley (2002) agreed that
comprehension must be explicitly taught. Furthermore, "comprehension abilities are not
skills that, once mastered, never need to be relearned. Rather, comprehension is an
ability that, with high-quality instruction, constantly deepens and broadens over time,
enabling students to appreciate more sophisticated and subtle meanings" (Block & Israel,
2005).
Comprehension strategies must be modeled and taught. They should be
integrated throughout the curriculum and used in the content area classes as well (Duffy,
2003; Lapp, Fisher & Grant, 2008; Ness, 2007). Students should engage in self-directed
learning as it has been found to improve their motivation to read and thus their reading
comprehension. Cooperative learning can also improve reading comprehension,
especially when it is text-based and utilizes open-ended questions. Students should be
exposed to wide variety of diverse texts and should engage in meaningful writing
activities to solidify their reading comprehension (Biancarosa, 2005, pp. 17-19).
"Comprehension lessons should include modeling, think-alouds, scaffolding, guided
32
practice, and independent silent-reading opportunities to use comprehension processes
independently" (Block & Israel, p. 96). Think alouds occur through read-alouds during
which time the teacher models his or her thinking orally to illustrate comprehension
processing while reading (Davey, 1983).
There are a number of strategies that appear to improve comprehension. These
include
monitoring students' understanding and making adjustments as needed;
activating and applying relevant prior knowledge (for example, by making
predictions); generating questions; thinking aloud; attending to and
uncovering text structure; drawing inferences; constructing visual
representations; and summarizing. With each strategy, explicit teaching
should include information about what the strategy is, when it is used, how
it is used, and why it is worth using. (Duke, 2004, p. 41-42)
Furthermore, struggling readers will need additional support, especially in the
area of expository text. Many struggling readers actually "prefer information texts and
view the act of reading as one of 'work' to learn information rather than one of recreation
to 'enjoy' a story" (Reutzel, Camperell, & Smith, 2002, p. 337). In this technological
age, more support will also be needed to help students comprehend and evaluate Internet
content (Coiro, 2003). Context clues become very important at this point. They are
useful for "broadly comprehending text as well as for specifically learning new words.
Instruction in context problem solving pays great dividends" (Greenwood & Flanigan,
2007, p. 249).
33
In addition to context clues, the types of activities that can support struggling
readers with their comprehension include: (1) elaborative interrogation, where students
ask "why" questions; (2) text organization instruction, where students learn to use
graphic organizers; and (3) social and self-regulatory process instruction, where students
develop self-efficacy in order to impact achievement and learn to self-regulate their
comprehension processes (Reutzel, Camperell, & Smith, 2002). Communicative reading
strategies have also been shown to help struggling readers. With the use of
communicative reading strategies, the instructor provides "contextually supported
feedback to help children reconstruct the author's message" (Crowe, 2005, p. 34).
Liang and Dole (2006) described five research-based comprehension instructional
frameworks that focused on either understanding the text or utilizing comprehension
strategies. These frameworks included the Scaffolded Reading Experience (SRE),
Questioning the Author (QtA), Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), Peer-Assisted
Learning Strategies (PALS) and Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI). SRE
involves the use of prereading and postreading activities that will scaffold the individual
reader and promote comprehension. QtA involves the use of teacher and student
generated questions about the author's ideas. In CSR, students collaboratively move
through four processes - previewing, monitoring, summarizing, and wrapping up. PALS
pairs a high and low reader together and they each take turns reading, developing main
ideas, and predicting. CORI is used with content area subjects and allows students to ask
questions, gather information, comprehend and integrate, and then communicate their
learning (Liang & Dole, 2006).
34
Another framework or technique in developing a reader's comprehension is story
retelling. In a story retelling, the reader can either verbally or in writing tell what he or
she remembers about a given story.
Retelling requires the child to construct a personal text, making inferences based
on original text as well as on prior knowledge. Research demonstrates that
instruction and practice in retelling usually result in the development of
comprehension, a sense of story structure, and oral complexity in a child's use of
language. (Morrow, 1989, p. 54)
In a 1994 study, researchers found that middle school students were particularly
successful with story retelling when they used advance organizers as a prereading activity
and combined the organizers with prereading discussions (Rinehart, Barksdale-Ladd,
Paterson, 1994, p. 244).
Research has also shown that i^ciprocal teaching will aid in the development of
comprehension. Through the use of four strategies - summarizing, questioning,
clarifying, and predicting - the teacher and students engage in discussion. The teacher
models the use of the strategies and then the students use the strategies in a small group
format (Stahl, 2004). Studies by Van Keer (2004) and Van Keer and Verhaeghe (2005)
indicated that explicit modeling, followed by a whole group discussion and then cross-
age peer tutoring will also improve reading comprehension.
One of the factors that impacts a student's reading comprehension is their
vocabulary development. "One of the longest, most clearly articulated lines of research
in literacy education describes the strong connection between readers' vocabulary
knowledge and their reading comprehension" (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2004, p. 66). As
35
Boulware-Gooden, Carreker, Thornhill and Joshi (2007) pointed out, "students need
vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive skills so they can monitor their understanding
and reflect on what has been read" (Boulware-Gooden, et al., 2007, p. 71). Children who
come from homes that do not have print-rich environments and do not engage in shared
reading experiences with adults tend to have poorly developed oral language. "Limited
vocabulary knowledge is a major contributor to the oral language deficits that diminish
young children's comprehension" (Reutzel, Camperell, & Smith, 2002, p. 323). Juel and
Deffes (2004) report, "research suggests that the vocabulary of entering 1st graders
predicts not only their word reading ability at the end of 1st grade but also their 11th grade
reading comprehension" (Juel & Deffes, 2004, p. 31).
It is important to note that while the focus in improving reading comprehension
has been through the use of reading strategies, writing can also help as well. Reading and
writing are integrated processes. After all, "opportunities to respond in writing allow
students to think again about their reading, this time on paper" (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000,
p. 30). In a 2007 study, researchers reported on four writing strategies that teachers can
use to improve reading comprehension. These include About/Point (a summarizing
strategy), Cubing, (a strategy for asking questions from multiple perspectives), Four
Square Graphic Organizer (a strategy for organizing thoughts) and Read, Respond,
Revisit, Discuss (an interactive journaling strategy) (Wallace, Pearman, Hail, & Hurst,
2007).
Yet another significant factor in comprehension development is that of
motivation. Not only must students have the skill to read, they must have the desire to
read as well. "As individuals read more, they read better and learn more about the world.
36
The result is better comprehension . . . " (Gambrell, Block & Pressley, 2002, pp. 7-8).
Duffy (2003) concurred with the aforementioned and stated that "oral language and
vocabulary are the basis of comprehension ... [and] comprehension is enhanced when
students are engaged and motivated" (Duffy, 2003, pp. 5-6).
Tied in with motivation is engagement. A study by Lutz, Guthrie and Davis
(2006) found that reading comprehension increased when students were engaged in
learning and there was a "high complexity of literacy tasks in which students are
engaged" (Lutz, et al., 2006, p. 13).
Pardo (2004) agreed that a strong vocabulary, motivation and engagement are key
to developing readers with good comprehension. She also pointed out the students must
have good decoding skills and must be fluent readers. If students are no longer working
on decoding issues, and "as word reading becomes automatic, students become fluent and
can focus on comprehension" (Pardo, 2004, p. 273).
One way to support students' comprehension is through instructional scaffolding
(Duffy, p. 55). Clark and Graves (2004) reported that scaffolding is useful in several
ways in that it can "aid students by helping them to better complete a task, to complete a
task with less stress or in less time, or to learn more fully than they would have
otherwise" (Clark & Graves, 2004, p. 571). Scaffolding is perhaps best understood by
examining the gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983)
shown in Figure 1. In this gradual release of responsibility model, students gradually
progress from
situations in which the teacher takes the majority of the responsibility for
successfully completing a reading task, to situations in which students assume
37
increasing responsibility for reading tasks, and finally to situations in which
students take all or nearly all the responsibility for reading tasks. At any point in
time, teachers should scaffold students enough so that they do not give up on the
task or fail at it but not scaffold them so much that they do not have the
opportunity to actively work on the problem themselves (Clark & Graves, 2004,
p. 571).
Figure 1. The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction.
The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction
Proportion of responsibility for task completion
All teacher Joint responsibility All student
Retrieved October 13, 2006 from http.7/home.earthlink.net/~ihholly/gradualrelease.htm
Effective comprehension instruction utilizes this gradual release of responsibility
and utilizes strategies to teach students to have a plan of action. It does not involve
merely reading a passage and answering a few questions. These strategies include the
ability to "self-monitor, summarize, use graphic organizers, ask questions, use semantic
organizers, identify story structures, relate reading material to prior knowledge, and use
mental imagery" (Minskoff, 2005, p. 138). These strategies must be taught. As Carnine
et al. (2006) pointed out, "good instruction is the most powerful means of promoting
38
proficient comprehension and preventing comprehension problems" (p. 209).
Furthermore, this instruction must begin in the primary grades (Vaughn & Linan-
Thompson, 2004).
However, a study done in 1978 by Dolores Durkin indicated that comprehension
was not being taught - it was being tested but not being explicitly taught. As Vaughn and
Linan-Thompson (2004) reported,
Durkin found that in a study of over 4000 minutes of 4l grade reading
instruction, only 20 minutes of comprehension instruction was recorded.
These findings shocked researchers and teachers at the time. More recent
studies reveal that explicit comprehension instruction is still not being
provided as often as it should be. (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004, p. 100)
Durkin (1978) described classroom after classroom that was focused on volumes of ditto
sheets. This proved problematic for comprehension as the sheer magnitude of ditto
sheets
often meant that several days intervened between the time a story was read by
children and the time their teachers queried them about it. With the delay, it was
impossible to ascertain whether the questions were assessing the ability to
comprehend or the ability to recall what had been comprehended. (Durkin, 1978,
p. 524)
Durkin (1983) indicated that part of the problem was that teacher's manuals provided a
great deal of comprehension assessment with little accompanying comprehension
instruction. "Why comprehension is constantly tested but rarely taught has no obvious
39
explanation. Perhaps as more is learned about the comprehension process, more
suggestions for teaching it will get into manuals" (Durkin, 1978, pp. 280-281).
Pressley (2002) pointed out that education is still focusing less on comprehension
instruction and more on word recognition skills (p. 388). In a 1998 study, researchers
discovered that not much progress had been made in comprehension instruction since the
Durkin study in 1978.
... despite a great deal of research in the past two decades on how to
promote children's comprehension of what they read, we observed only
rare instances of explicit comprehension instruction. Indeed, the situation
still seems to be much as Durkin described, with a great deal of testing of
comprehension but very little teaching of it. (Pressley, Wharton-
McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston, & Echevarria, 1998, pp. 186-187)
A study by Wendler, Samuels and Moore (1989) found similar results. Further, they
found that much of the comprehension instructional time was actually comprehension
assessment with the teacher asking the students questions. Twenty-two years later,
however, some of Durkin's concerns were addressed. Dole (2000) reported about a paper
presented to the American Educational Research Association wherein Rosenshine (1997)
discussed the extent to which cognitive strategy instruction has been implemented
in recent basal reading programs . . . . Developers of basal programs have paid
attention to the research on comprehension strategies and now include these
strategies as part of their instructional program. (Dole, 2000, p. 62)
40
While comprehension and comprehension strategy instruction are vital, Nelson-
Herber and Johnston (1989) pointed out that teachers should not lose sight of the ultimate
goal of reading - enjoyment of literature.
All children should have access to whatever skills they may need to help
them understand and enjoy stories. Our mistake in teaching is that we
sometimes focus so hard on the skills and strategies that we (and the
children) lose sight of the goal. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that
one way children learn to read better is by reading more. There needs to be
a time for teaching and a time for reading for pleasure. (Herber & Johnston, 1989,
p. 269)
As seen in the aforementioned studies, the purpose of reading is comprehension
and it is a skill that must be taught and practiced. There are a variety of strategies to be
taught including teaching students cognitive structures for identifying story grammar and
using think-alouds to model the comprehension strategies. Comprehension must be
explicitly taught, especially in the primary grades. Scaffolding, such as through the
gradual release of responsibility model, can be useful. Comprehension instruction is
beginning to occur more in classrooms and it is vital that this trend continue.
Current Research in Fluency
Fluency is a key to reading instruction. One text described it as the "bridge
between word recognition and comprehension" (Carnine, Silbert, Kame'enui, Tarver, &
Jungjohann, 2006, p. 141). In fact, the reader must indeed use comprehension in order to
support fluency (Fountas & Pinnell, 2006; Daly, Chafouleas & Skinner, 2005). But, as
Topping (2006) pointed out "fluency is of little value in itself- its value lies in what it
41
enables" (Topping, 2006, p. 106). Fluency is important because fluent readers are more
likely to comprehend and thus are more likely to choose to read. Fluent reading also
requires less effort than decoding (Daly, Chafouleas, & Skinner, 2005). "Fluency enables
students to focus on constructing meaning from text" (Walley, 1993, p. 526). However, it
is important to note that a reader can be fluent without comprehending. Cole (2004)
described a group of English language learners who could read English fluently with
absolutely no comprehension. They had mastered decoding but not comprehension.
Research has shown that
most children develop into fluent readers by third grade. Approximately 75
percent of students who are poor readers in third grade continue to be lower
achieving readers in ninth grade and, in essence, do not recover their reading
abilities even into adulthood. (Corcoran & Davis, 2005, p. 105)
Cole (2004) described the attributes of a fluent reader. First, they have a large sight
vocabulary. Second, a fluent reader effectively uses decoding strategies. A fluent reader
also reads audibly and in phrases or chunks. When reading a rehearsed text, a fluent
reader can read at a smooth, steady pace. Fluency is impacted by variables such as type
of text being read, purpose for reading, and prior knowledge about the topic of the text
(Johns, 2005). It is noteworthy that students will have different needs in regards to the
amount of practice time they will require in improving both their fluency and accuracy
(Carnine et al., 2006). Reading fluency is impacted by the different demands text
features place on readers. For example, familiarity with a genre type will facilitate
fluency, as will prior knowledge about text structures, content, themes and ideas,
language and literary features, vocabulary and words. The complexity of sentences will
42
also impact a reader's fluency (Fountas & Pinnell, 2006). Worthy and Broaddus (2002)
compared reading fluency to being a musician.
Just as musicians learn common chords and melodic sequences, fluent
readers must have a vocabulary of high-frequency words, graphophonic
skills, and strategies for accurately decoding new words. Frequent
opportunities to practice identifying words through meaningful reading and
writing experiences help the reader to achieve automatic word identification
or automaticity, just as practicing scales and favorite pieces helps the
musician to develop technical expertise. (Worthy & Broaddus, 2002, p. 335)
O'Connor, Bell, Harly, Larkin, Sackor, and Zigmond (2002) conducted a fluency
intervention study on upper elementary students, specifically third through fifth grade
students. O'Connor et al. found that those who were the farthest behind in terms of
fluency made the greatest gains if they were continuously given books to read that were
on their reading level (Rasinski, 2003). Stahl and Heubach (2005) conducted a similar
study on second grade students with similar results. Further research reported that
explicit fluency instruction should begin no later than second grade (Moskal
&Blachowicz, 2006) with some contending that fluency measures should actually begin
during the middle of first grade (Chard, Pikulski, & McDonagh, 2006, p. 56).
Block and Israel (2005) pointed out that students actually needed to practice with
materials both below their level, on their level, and occasionally above their level. They
used the following analogy.
Fluency development is analogous to learning to play tennis. A tennis
player is tested to determine her level of play and then placed in a
43
category with players at this same level. On occasion she'll play down a level to
get in a quick game without the need to exert a lot of effort, or play up a level in
order to challenge herself and determine where she needs practice. To be the best
one can be and to develop skill level most efficiently, one needs to play (or read
in this case) within the range of skill level where frequent successes will be
obtained. Repeated reading - repeated tennis, read a lot at the right level - play a
lot at the right level. (Block & Israel, 2005, pp. 82-83)
As in tennis, the amount of practice needed in order to become a fluent reader varies with
each individual. It becomes the role of the instructor to determine who needs the most
practice and develop a practice schedule for those needing a more intense workout
(Carnine, et al., 2006).
Allington (1999) stated "research has shown that kids with a low degree of
fluency are less likely to understand what they read" (Allington, 1999, p. 12). Archer,
Gleason, and Vachon (2003) provide the following example to illustrate this point.
A recent incident with a young friend provided the perfect analogy. He
had just obtained his driver's permit at age 15-1/2 and begged to drive to
the store. As drivers, our cognitive resources must respond to two aspects
of driving: the mechanics of driving (brakes, gas, windshield wipers, etc.)
and road hazards. As a new driver, Matt was deeply engrossed in the
mechanics of driving. As he searched for the windshield wipers, he pulled
into the wrong lane, and we were faced with a semi-truck. After one of us
grabbed the wheel and pulled us back to safety, Mart's gift to us became
evident: the perfect fluency analogy. Attend to the mechanics and face a
44
semi. Attend to decoding and miss the gist. (Archer, et al., 2003, p. 96)
Bender and Larkin (2003) described the areas of the brain that are involved in fluent
reading versus decoding.
If the brain of a student reading a particular passage tends to be more active in
Broca's area ... than in the visual cortex or Wenicke's area ..., that student is
concentrating on the meaning .... The student would more than likely
demonstrate very fluent reading skills on that particular passage. (Bender &
Larkin, 2003, p. 124)
Fluent reading does not just mean fast reading. Allington (2001) described other features
that must be considered as well.
Clay and Imlach (1971) conducted the classic study on the development of
reading fluency. They examined the reading behaviors of 100 beginning
readers and noted that those early readers making the greatest progress not
only read faster and more accurately but also with better phrasing and
intonation. While the lowest-progress readers read aloud in one and two
word segments, the highest-progress readers read in five to seven word
phrases. Of course, reading in phrases produced faster reading as well.
The high-progress readers also spontaneously self-corrected four and five
times as many of their word pronunciation errors as did the lower-progress
readers. Thus, these two characteristics, phrase reading with appropriate
intonation and spontaneous self-correction of many misread words, were
clearly associated with those children making better progress in learning to
read. (Allington, 2001, p. 71)
45
The importance of fluency cannot be overstated. In a study of struggling older
readers by Archer et al. (2003), fluency was determined to be a foundation skill. Students
who did not become fluent readers in primary grades, grew further and further behind as
they advanced in years. Archer et al. (2003) recommended that struggling older readers
receive reading practice in the areas of guided reading, choral reading, partner reading,
and repeated reading activities to enhance fluency development. Garriot and Jones
(2005) stated "building fluency is a major issue with struggling middle grade readers,
who may have done well in elementary school but find themselves stymied by more
demanding middle school texts" (Garriot & Jones, 2005, p.67). Blau (1999)
recommended that students in second through fifth grades receive fluency instruction
through the following strategies: modeling of fluent reading, repeated readings in class,
use of phrased reading in class, use of tutors in class, and use of reader's theater in class.
Bullion-Mears, McCauley and McWhorter (2007) recommended some of these
performance techniques, such as reader's theater and poetry, not only for fluency practice
but also to build comprehension. They recommend taking nonfiction text and turning it
into poems and reader's theater. This allows the students to work on both fluency and
comprehension, while navigating the more difficult nonfiction text.
Allinder, Dunse, Brunken, and Obermiller-Krolikowski (2001) studied fluency in
at-risk readers and students with learning disabilities. The treatment group was taught
with specific oral reading fluency strategies. Teacher-student conferences were held with
the control group during which time students were instructed to do their best while
reading. Results indicated that "all students improved on a standardized norm-referenced
test of comprehension, but students who used a specific oral reading strategy made
46
significantly greater progress in reading, as measured by curriculum-based measurement
maze procedures" (Allinder et al., 2001, p. 48). Conderman and Strobel (2006)
recommended that students with disabilities utilize a guided repeated oral reading
technique to promote oral reading fluency. This technique allows for an initial reading,
or cold read, of a passage on Monday, and then multiple opportunities to practice the
same passage throughout the week. Finally, on Friday, the student reads the passage for
the final time, or the hot read, and data is again collected. The student's progress is
noted. This data provides the framework for future interventions.
Begeny and Martens (2006) also looked at low-performing readers by establishing
reading fluency interventions with a group of third graders. Like the Allinder et al. study,
Begeny and Martens found that students made greater progress in reading when measured
by maze comprehension passages. Begeny and Martens also found that oral reading
rates improved as well with the introduction of reading fluency interventions These
interventions included word-list training, listening passage preview, and repeated reading
instruction. The National Reading Panel (2000) also found that
the analysis of guided oral reading procedures led to the conclusion that such
procedures had a consistent, and positive impact on word recognition, fluency,
and comprehension as measured by a variety of test instruments and at a range of
grade levels (NICHD, 2000, p. 3-3).
Repeated readings is a method developed by Samuels (1979). "The method
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" (Samuels,
1979, p. 403). Repeated readings combined with word boxes, a phonics technique, have
47
also proved useful in increasing the fluency rates of high school students that had severe
reading delays. Devault and Joseph (2004) studied three high school students who were
severely delayed readers. Their research indicated that all three students increased their
fluency rates when presented with the instructional techniques of repeated reading
coupled with word boxes. Samuels, Schermer and Reinking (1992) warned
although it (repeated reading) is a useful technique for nonautomatic
decoders, it is not recommended for students who are already reading
fluently. The method is satisfying because it works, and students who
have had histories of reading failure can experience the feeling of being
able to read with expression and understanding. (Samuels, et al., 1992, p. 138)
Therrien and Kubina (2006) describe repeated reading as an efficient technique for
helping students to gain reading fluency.
Repeated reading directly targets oral reading fluency and can easily be
integrated in an existing reading program. Previous research has shown
that repeated reading is effective with a variety of students, including
students with disabilities. Using essential instructional components and
selecting appropriate materials maximizes the effectiveness of repeated
reading. (Therrien & Kubina, 2006, p. 159)
Yurick, Robinson, Cartledge, Lo, and Evans (2006) furthered this notion with their study
on repeated readings. Yurick et al. conducted three experiments focusing on the effects
of peer-mediated repeated readings on reading fluency and comprehension. Their
findings indicated that oral reading rate, reading accuracy and comprehension improved
more during peer-mediated repeated reading than during silent sustained reading.
48
Samuels (2002) reported
in the two decades since the method (repeated readings) was first
introduced, more than 100 studies have been published that have tested the
repeated reading method. A consistent finding from these studies is that
repeated reading practice produces statistically significant improvement in
reading speed, word recognition, and oral reading expression on the
practice passages. (Samuels, 2002, p. 179)
Readers' theater is a form of repeated readings done in a "meaningful and
purposeful context" (Strecker, 1999, p. 329). The scripts are adapted from a piece of
prose or poetry so they are suitable for oral reading (Hertzberg, 2000, p. 22). Corcoran
and Davis (2005) conducted a study assessing the effects of readers' theater on second
and third grade special education students' fluency. The results from this study indicated
both reading attitudes and confidence levels of these struggling readers improved as they
repeatedly practiced these readers' theater scripts in their groups. Furthermore, their
fluency rates improved as well: "the number of words read correctly per minute
increased overall as a class by an increase of 17 additional words read correctly in spring
versus winter" (Corcoran & Davis, 2005, p. 110). Griffith and Rasinski (2004) reported
students in Griffith's classroom made 2.3 years reading growth in terms of
comprehension and increased their reading rate by 47.4 words per minute as a result of
the use of readers' theater in the classroom throughout the year. Keehn (2003)
conducted a readers' theater study wherein one treatment group received readers' theater
intervention and the other treatment group received readers' theater intervention plus
explicit instruction. Both groups made "statistically significant growth in oral reading
49
fluency during the nine-week Reader's Theater intervention ... but there was no
significant difference in growth made by the two treatment groups..." (p. 49).
Yet another intervention that appears to improve fluency is paired reading
(Mastropieri, Leinert, and Scruggs, 1999). In paired reading, a strong reader is paired
with a struggling reader. In a case study by Ferrara (2005), a struggling reader was
instructed with paired reading. The struggling reader's fluency was then examined pre-
and post- paired reading. Her pre-intervention reading rate was 84 words per minute and
post-intervention reading rate rose to 140.6 words per minute. Nes (2003) found similar
results in a paired reading study. Her results indicated that "reading fluency improved
substantially for all participants, while accuracy and comprehension remained stable and
high throughout the study" (Nes, 2003, p. 179).
Dowrick, Kim-Rupnow, and Power (2006) describe a process known as video
feedforward which also improves reading fluency. The principle behind video
feedforward is to video the child reading fluently, show the child the video, thus
encouraging the child to read more fluently.
The images of fluent passage reading were achieved mostly by capturing
the child's echo reading, editing out the tutor's modeling, and interspersing
glimpses of the tutor's face as cutaways. The accurate recognition of sight
words was achieved by taking advantage of the improvements that occurred
by the sixth or seventh time through the flashcards. On the feedforward
principle, it was important to select and repeat the rare successes of
individually difficult words rather than make the easier choice of selecting
better known words .... (Dowrick, et al., 2006, p. 198)
50
Lionetti and Cole (2004) found that listening while reading also increased reading
fluency. Researchers tried adjusting the rate at which students were listening while
reading, one rate resembling the reader's natural oral reading rate, and one rate
approximately 20% above the reader's current oral reading rate. "Results indicated that
both rates increased words correct per minute and a high level of accuracy was
maintained ... neither intervention had any effect on comprehension" (Lionetti & Cole,
2004, p. 114).
Explicit timing also seems to have had an impact upon students' fluency scores.
In a study by Cates and Rhymer (2006), students who knew they were being explicitly
timed when they were reading improved their reading rate over times when they did not
think they were being timed. Moskal (2006) discovered that timing of students during
repeated readings did in fact improve their time. In this study, the researcher also found
that students could self-manage their repeated readings; the teacher did not have to
conduct all the timings. The students were self-directed and still made the fluency gains.
Evidence-based literacy practices have impacted fluency scores as well. In a
study by Greenwood, Tapia, Abbott, and Walton (2003), teachers formed cohorts and
engaged in evidence-based literacy staff development. These evidence-based literacy
practices included: shared book experience, phonemic awareness, repeated reading,
initial reading blending, early intervention reading, partner reading, word family books,
dolch words, writer's workshop, reading class-wide peer tutoring, spelling class-wide
peer tutoring, partner reading questions, and reciprocal teaching. As a result of the
implementation of these evidence-based literacy practices, overall fluency scores
improved 58.3 words per minute. Welsch (2006) listed many of these evidence-based
51
literacy practices as well. He also added repeated reading with teacher/peer/audiotape/
CD modeling; choral reading, use of praise; use of appropriate-level text, use of
predictable or patterned text, use of word/phrase/letter-naming drills, use of computer
programs, and use of parent/school reading programs.
Blevins (2000) described the types of direct instruction and feedback that students
need in regards to fluency instruction. Students should be explicitly taught the sound-
spelling correspondences and should practice new or difficult words. Teachers should
explain the return-sweep eye movement and should also teach appropriate phrasing and
intonation. Motivation is also key and can be done with incentives, charting and rewards.
Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006) offered a cautionary note about reading fluency and
the recent push to increase fluency scores.
... there appears to be a tendency among some educators to believe that raising a
student's fluency score is "the" main goal of reading instruction. As important as
fluency is, and as valuable as the information obtained from fluency-based
assessments can be for instructional decision making, we caution teachers and
administrators to keep fluency and fluency-based assessment scores in
perspective. Helping our students become fluent readers is absolutely critical for
proficient and motivated reading. Nonetheless, fluency is only one of the
essential skills involved in reading. (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006, p. 642).
Johns (2005) echoed this point when discussing the factors that impact fluency. A
student's fluency is affected by the type of text being read - either narrative or
informational. It can also be affected by the purpose for reading, as well as prior
knowledge. Simply put, "fluency norms give no attention to these important
52
considerations, so it is up to teachers to be mindful of these variables when assessing oral
reading rate and using oral reading fluency norms" (Johns, 2005, p. 5). Torgeson and
Hudson (2006) indicated that reading fluency is influenced by the following: proportion
of "sight" words in a passage; variations processing speed of "sight" words, decoding
fluency of unknown words, use of context clues to facilitate word identification, speed
with which word meanings are determined, speed with which overall meaning is
determined, and differences in the value the reader places on speed versus accuracy in
reading. Rhodes and Dudley-Marling (1996) further stated
no one is always a fluent reader; each of us can think of situations in which
our reading was or could be less fluent. Thus we cannot set as a goal
helping students to become fluent readers in all situations. Our goal instead
must be to help them become fluent readers in an increasingly wider range
of reading situations (Rhodes & Dudley-Marling, 1996, p. 154).
Fluency research was brought to the forefront with an examination of the research
by Kuhn and Stahl (2003). Their pivotal work examined the significant pieces of
research on fluency. They found that
(a) fluency instruction is generally effective, although it is unclear whether this is
because of specific instructional features or because it involves children in
reading increased amounts of text; (b) assisted approaches seem to be more
effective than unassisted approaches; (c) repetitive approaches do not seem to
hold a clear advantage over nonrepetitive approaches; and (d) effective fluency
instruction moves beyond automatic word recognition to include rhythm and
53
expression, or what linguists refer to as the prosodic features of language. (Kuhn
& Stahl, 2003, p. 3)
The aforementioned studies indicated fluency is a key component of reading
instruction. Most children are fluent by third grade. Those who are not yet fluent need to
be given books on their reading level. Those that read dysfluently are likely to not
comprehend what they read. Fluent reading is more than reading fast; it also is reading
with phrasing and intonation. Techniques for improving fluency include repeated
readings, readers' theater, paired reading, video feedforward, listening while reading,
explicit timing, shared book experience, phonemic awareness, partner reading, and
reciprocal teaching. Fluency is impacted by the type of text being read, purpose for
reading and the reader's prior knowledge.
Intersection of Fluency and Comprehension
"Fluency has been shown to have a 'reciprocal relationship' with comprehension,
with each fostering the other," (Stecker, Roser, & Martinez, 1998, p. 306). Pressley,
Gaskins and Fingeret (2006) stated "fluency and comprehension are not so much linear
processes but are interdependent in a 'blurry' sort of way" (Pressley, et al., 2006, p. 62).
They further contended that "comprehension strategies should be taught to all readers
from the beginning of reading instruction, even if they have not yet become fluent"
(Pressley, et al., 2006, p. 62). The link between fluency and comprehension was best
described by Allington (1999).
Research has shown that kids with a low degree of fluency are less likely to
understand what they read. The skills of summarizing, analyzing, and
synthesizing material - essential for high-level thinking - seem to require
54
fluent reading. When kids read fluently, paying attention to phrasing and
intonation, it's obvious that they understand what they're reading. But
when kids read word by word, syllable by syllable, or even phrase by
phrase in that familiar monotone, it's a signal that their attention is not
directed at making sense out of the text. Instead, they're spending their
cognitive energy on decoding. (Allington, 1999, p. 12)
In two studies by Berninger, Abbott, Vermeulen, and Fulton (2006), researchers
examined at-risk second grade readers. Both studies found a relationship between
fluency and comprehension. In Study 1, "both accuracy and rate of word-level and text-
level oral reading were correlated significantly with and contributed unique variance to
reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers" (Berninger, et al., 2006, p. 348).
Study 2 "also demonstrated that instruction that integrated phonological decoding, real-
word reading, text reading, and reading comprehension improved reading fluency in at-
risk second-grade readers" (Berninger, et al., 2006, p. 348).
A study by Bryant, Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Ugel, Hamff & Hougen (2000)
examined the reading outcomes for middle school students with and without reading
disabilities. Researchers examined average achievers, low achievers, and students with
reading disabilities.
The fluency results were particularly encouraging for all three groups of
students. Data showed that with intensive practice, students with reading
disabilities in particular gained from the program, which consisted of two to
three 30-minute fluency training sessions per week. These data suggest that
students with reading disabilities can benefit from a fluency-building
55
strategy and that many struggling readers would profit from repeated
reading fluency instruction incorporated into their curricula. However,
most middle-school curricula do not include fluency building as a target
skill. ... students with reading disabilities need to learn effective decoding
strategies (e.g., word identification) and develop fluency (e.g., partner
reading) satisfactorily before comprehension can take place more readily.
(Bryant, etal., 2000, p. 251)
A study by Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, and Jenkins (2001) examined seventy middle
school and junior high students.
... students' oral reading fluency was most strongly associated with
capacity to read passages and answer questions about those passages on a
widely used, commercial achievement test of reading comprehension ....A
correlation between oral reading fluency and performance on the Reading
Comprehension subtest of the Stanford Achievement Tests of .91 is
nonetheless impressive because oral reading fluency, on its fact, does not
require students to understand what they read. The high correlation for oral
reading fluency, however, does corroborate theoretically driven hypotheses
about the potential of oral reading fluency as an indicator of overall reading
competence. (Fuchs, et al., 2001, p. 245)
Hitchcock, Prater, and Dowrick (2004) examined the effects of tutoring and video
self-modeling on four first-grade students with reading difficulties. Reading fluency,
"measured in number of correct words per minute, double for three students and
quadrupled for the fourth by the end of eight weeks. Reading comprehension measured
56
in number of correct responses, reached pre-established criteria" (Hitchcock, et al., 2004,
p. 89). The tutoring and the video self-modeling significantly impacted both reading
fluency and comprehension.
Text presentation also impacts reading fluency and comprehension in struggling
readers. In a study by Lagrou, Burns, Mizerek and Mosack (2006), researchers presented
groups of students with reading material from a book and reading material that was on a
separate typed page. While there was no difference in mean fluency and comprehension
scores for the two highest reading skills groups,
the difference between the Typed and Book conditions was significant for both
fluency and comprehension among children in the lowest reading group. Students
in the lowest reading group read more fluently and with better comprehension
from the Book condition than from the Typed condition (Lagrou, et al., 2006, p.
100).
The fluency and comprehension of struggling readers in kindergarten through
third grade was examined in a study by O'Connor, Harty, and Pulmer (2005).
Researchers found that Tier 3 interventions made the most difference in fluency and
comprehension. Tier 3 interventions included daily small group or individual instruction.
Comprehension scores increased 15% and fluency scores increased 100%. Vaughn,
Linan-Thompson, Kouzekanani, Bryant, Dickson, and Blozis (2003) also examined the
impact of small group and individual instruction on fluency and comprehension. The
results of their study indicated that optimal grouping formats included 1:1 (one teacher
with one student) and 1:3 (one teacher with three students) instruction. 1:10 (one teacher
57
with ten students) instruction did not have as strong a benefit as the smaller group
instruction.
Reutzel and Hollingsworth (1993) examined the effects of fluency training on the
reading comprehension of second graders. Oral recitation lessons improved oral reading
fluency; round robin reading did not. Furthermore, researchers learned that fluency
training had a statistically significant impact on comprehension. "These results provide
tentative evidence for a causal effect of fluency training upon students' reading
comprehension as well as an argument against the use of a RR (round robin) reading
approach for developing either fluency or comprehension" (Reutzel & Hollingsworth,
1993, p. 325).
Stage and Jacobsen (2001) examined the predictive nature of fluency scores on
comprehension. They examined one hundred seventy-three fourth graders in the state of
Washington. Their research determined that "oral reading fluency probes administered in
September, January, and May reliably predicted May WASL reading performance"
(Stage & Jacobsen, 2001, p. 407) The WASL is the Washington Assessment of Student
Learning and is a performance-based test measuring reading comprehension.
In the previous section, research indicated that repeated readings were useful in
increasing reading fluency rates. Repeated readings can also improve comprehension
scores. A study by Therrien (2004) indicated that "repeated reading improves the
reading fluency and comprehension of both nondisabled (ND) students and students with
LD (learning disabled). All students obtained a moderate mean increase in fluency ...
and a somewhat smaller mean increase in comprehension" (Therrien, 2004, p. 257).
58
Vaughn, Chard, Bryant, Coleman, Tyler, Linan-Thompson, and Kouzekanani
(2000) conducted a 12-week study examining fluency and comprehension interventions
for third grade students. Their research indicated that fluency and comprehension
interventions created "statistically significant effects for rate of reading and correct words
read per minute (but not accuracy or comprehension) for both partner reading and
collaborative strategic ..." (Vaughn, et al., 2000, p. 325).
Manset-Williamson and Nelson (2005) examined the effect of explicit instruction
and guided reading on fluency and comprehension in upper elementary and middle
school students with reading disabilities. Their findings indicate that both approaches
had relatively the same impact on fluency scores. However, explicit instruction had a
greater impact on comprehension than did guided reading (Manset-Williamson & Nelson,
2005, p. 69).
To reiterate, research has shown that fluency and comprehension are related
aspects of reading. Video self-modeling impacts fluency and comprehension as does text
presentation. Research has also shown that small group or individualized instruction
seems to make the most difference in impacting the fluency and comprehension of
struggling readers. Repeated reading not only improves fluency but comprehension
scores as well. According to the research, explicit instruction and guided reading impact
fluency and explicit instruction impacts comprehension more than guided reading does.
Research on First Grade Students
Early intervention is critical. A study by Coyne, Kame'enui, Simmons and Harn
(2004) indicated "strong responders to kindergarten intervention can experience an
59
inoculation effect through the middle of first grade with research-validated classroom
reading instruction" (p. 90). Furthermore,
first grade represents a pivotal time in reading development, as students
learn to read words by sight and through decoding strategies. Ultimately,
children must be able to accurately and quickly identify words in text - that
is, they must develop oral reading fluency. The development of oral
reading fluency ... is a gradually developing, complex skill. (Speece &
Ritchey, 2005, p. 394)
Speece and Ritchey (2005) examined the development of oral reading fluency in first
grade students. Researchers found that
letter-sound fluency was a uniquely significant predictor of first-grade
reading fluency .... Growth in first-grade oral reading fluency accounted
for the most unique variance in second-grade growth and end-of-year
performance. The results suggest that word reading fluency should be
regarded as developing concomitantly with early word recognition rather
than as a later-developing skill. (Speece & Ritchey, 2005, p. 387)
Research has shown that explicit instruction improves reading comprehension in
older students (Manset-Williamson & Nelson, 2005). However, explicit instruction is
also useful for first grade students as well. Eilers and Pinkley (2006) examined the effect
of explicit instruction
in the metacognitive strategies of making text connections, predicting, and
sequencing .... Results showed a significant difference in students'
awareness of comprehension strategies and comprehension of text as
60
measured by the Index of Reading Awareness and the Beaver
Developmental Reading Assessment before and after the intervention.
These findings suggest that students in primary grades may benefit from
explicit instruction in reading comprehension strategies at the same time
they are learning to decode words. (Eilers & Pinkley, 2006, p. 13)
A study by Garner and Bochna (2004) also found that explicit instruction is useful for
first grade students. In their study, Garner and Bochna provided intervention group
students with instruction in narrative text structure. "Intervention group students
demonstrated superior comprehension in relation to all story elements and more
frequently displayed metalinguistic awareness of text structure by labeling and giving
examples of story structure concepts" (Garner & Bochna, 2004, p. 69). Pearson and
Duke (2002) agreed that explicit instruction of comprehension strategies improved
comprehension scores of primary students. They also contend
comprehension improves when teachers design and implement activities
that support the understanding of the texts that students will read in their
classes. Comprehension and decoding can exist side by side as
instructional goals and valued student outcomes in an exemplary and
comprehensive literacy program for primary grade children. (Pearson & Duke,
2002, p. 247)
Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) found that repeated reading was another strategy useful
in helping improve reading fluency and comprehension in first grade students. In
monitoring early reading development in first grade students, however, a study by Fuchs,
Fuchs, and Compton (2004) found that word identification fluency was more predictive
61
of early reading development than nonsense word fluency. "Because predictive validity
with respect to end-of-year text-reading fluency and comprehension is stronger for word
identification fluency than for nonsense word fluency, word identification fluency
provides a stronger basis for formulating screening decisions in October of first grade"
(Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004, p. 19).
The aforementioned research indicated that early intervention is critical. By the
time students are in first grade, explicit instruction needs to occur in order to teach
fluency and comprehension strategies. Letter-sound fluency in first grade students has
been found to be a significant predictor of first grade reading fluency. Repeated reading
is a useful strategy in improving fluency and comprehension in first grade students.
Conclusion
Chapter Two reviewed the literature in terms of historical background of reading
instruction, theoretical framework of comprehension and fluency, historical background
of comprehension, reading policies, current research developments in reading
comprehension and fluency, the intersection of fluency and comprehension, as well as the
research on first grade students. The research on first grade students indicates that early
intervention is critical, which is the foundation of this study. Chapter Three will describe
the methodology of the study, including the research design, the participants, the
instrumentation, the data collection procedures, the data analysis procedures and the
limitations of the study.
Methodology. Chapter Three
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to understand the relationship of reading fluency
and reading comprehension. Chapter Three will describe the methodology of the study,
including the research design, the participants, the instrumentation, the data collection
procedures, the data analysis procedures and the limitations of the study.
Research Design
Given that the purpose of the study was to understand the relationship between
the reading fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students, the research
design for this study was a multivariate correlational research design. Gall, Gall & Borg
(2003) stated "correlational research designs are used for two major purposes: (1) to
explore causal relationships between variables and (2) to predict scores on one variable
from research participants' scores on other variables" (Gall, et al., 2003, p. 325). This
research design was chosen because it will serve the second of these purposes and will
explore the predictive relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension.
The researcher also used gender, ethnicity, educational status, economic status, at-risk,
migrant, and limited English proficient (LEP) as controlling variables in relationship to
reading comprehension.
Participants
The participants for this study were drawn from the population of first grade
students in a rural school district in the southwestern United States that services a total of
approximately 3500 students. Table 2 indicates the breakdown of the student population.
The total first grade population in this rural district was 262 students. Of that population,
63
fifty-three percent were male and forty-seven percent were female. In terms of ethnicity,
fifteen percent were African-American, fifty-four percent were Hispanic, and thirty-one
percent were white, non-Hispanic. Eighty-five percent of this population were in regular
education classes, with ten percent in special education and five percent of these first
graders identified as gifted and talented. Forty-eight percent of the population were at-
risk. Furthermore, sixty-two percent of the population were on free lunch and ten percent
of the population was on reduced lunch. This qualified the school as a Title I school.
Instrumentation
The instrument used to measure both reading fluency and reading comprehension
was the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI). According to the TPRI Teacher's
Guide 2006-2008, the TPRI is an "early reading instrument designed to identify the
reading and comprehension development of students in kindergarten and grades 1-2" (p.
1). The first grade TPRI measured the following reading concepts: phonemic awareness,
graphophonemic knowledge, reading accuracy, reading fluency, reading comprehension,
and reading vocabulary. For the purposes of this study, the researcher examined reading
accuracy, reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Copies of the protocol sheets for
the individual student records and the class summary sheets are available Appendix A
and B, respectively. The TPRI consisted of eleven tasks which the student must
perform. The first nine tasks were: blending word parts; blending phonemes;
64
Table 2
First Grade Student Population 2006-2007
Gender Number Percent
Male
Female
140
122
53
47
Ethnicity Number Percent
African American
Hispanic
White
40
142
80
15
54
31
Educational Status Number Percent
Special Education
Gifted and Talented
Regular Education
At-Risk
Limited English Proficient
27
13
222
125
35
10 Migrant
10
5
85
48
13
4
Economically Disadvantaged Number Percent
None
Free Lunch
Reduced Lunch
74
163
25
28
62
10
65
deleting initial sounds; deleting final sounds; and graphophonemic knowledge of initial
consonants, final consonants, middle vowels, initial blends and final blends. The fluency
and comprehension section of the TPRI began with Task 10 wherein the student was
presented with a word list to determine appropriate story placement. In Task 11, the
student read the story. During this time, the teacher took a running record indicating the
errors the student made. The teacher then determined the accuracy level - either
independent, instructional or frustration level, depending on the number of errors the
student makes. The teacher also recorded the time, factored in the errors, and recorded
the words correct per minute. This yielded a fluency score. The teacher then assessed
the child's comprehension with eight questions - three explicit questions, three implicit
questions, and two vocabulary questions. The three explicit questions were factual
questions based upon the story. The three implicit questions could be answered through
inferencing. The vocabulary questions required the student to use context clues to
determine the meaning of a given vocabulary word. After the student answered these
eight questions, the teacher indicated the number of questions the student answered
correctly. This yielded a comprehension score.
The TPRI was validated in 1998. In a validation study by Foorman, Fletcher,
Francis, Carlson, Chen, Mouzaki, et al., (1998),
the first TPRI reading comprehension story correlated moderately to highly
with all of the validation measures, including the reading comprehension
measures, with the exception of the serial naming tasks. ... The second
TPRI comprehension story did not correlate as highly with the validation
66
measures as the first TPRI comprehension story. While the correlations
were not as high, they were significant, particularly with other reading
comprehension measures. The pattern of correlations for the second TPRI
comprehension story were similar to the pattern of correlations between the
first comprehension story and the validation tasks. This similar pattern of
correlations provides some evidence of construct validity for the two
comprehension stories. (Foorman, et al., 1998, p. 79)
Reliability, however, was not determined in the 1998 study. Rather,
recommendations were made for revisions in the TPRI. The most significant change
recommended for the comprehension section of the test, was for the TPRI to begin using
less familiar stories. For example, the 1998 version of the TPRI used a story from Danny
and the Dinosaur. The authors of the validity study pointed out "comprehension
passages that were less familiar to students demonstrated the strongest reliability and
validity data" (Foorman, et al., 1998, p. 87). Thus, changes were made in the TPRI and
another test of reliability was conducted the following year in 1999. In this reliability
study, Cronbach's alpha was computed with the alpha coefficient ranges from 0 to 1.0
reported as the index of internal consistency. The researchers examined each of the
different tasks in kindergarten, first and second grade. These tasks included phonemic
awareness, graphophonemic knowledge, and reading comprehension tasks. Upon
examining the first grade comprehension portion of the reliability study, alpha ranged
from 0.42 to 0.69. The researchers conducting the reliability study established ranges to
determine the practical significance of the reliability coefficients. These ranges were as
67
follows: "Poor (0-.39), Adequate (.40 - .59), Good (.60-.79) and Excellent (.80-1.0)
(Center for Academic and Reading Skills and Texas Institute for Measurement,
Evaluation, and Statistics, 1999, p. 5). According to the researchers, the reliability
coefficients for the reading comprehension portion of the first grade test were in the
Adequate and Good ranges. The rest of the test in 1999 was found to be reliable as well.
Thus by 1999, the TPRI was determined to be both reliable and valid.
Data Collection Procedures
In order to collect the data the ensuing procedures were followed. First, human
subjects approval was obtained from a rural school district in the southwestern United
States. Upon agreement from the school district, the researcher then sought human
subjects approval from the University of Houston. Once human subjects approval was
obtained from both entities, the researcher will obtain a cover letter indicating approval
for the study from the rural school district. The researcher then contacted the language
arts supervisor for the school district to obtain the copies of the TPRI data teachers turned
in as archival data for the 2006-2007 school year.
Data Analysis Procedures
All data was analyzed utilizing the software, Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). The analytic approach that was utilized in this study was regression
analysis as the researcher was trying to predict the outcome of given variables. Both the
predictor variable, reading fluency, and the outcome variable, reading comprehension,
were continuous variables. Gender, ethnicity, educational status, economic status, at-risk,
migrant, and LEP are all control variables. These variables are described in further
Table 3
Variables
Name of the Variable
Gender
DOB
Description of Variable
A participant's gender
A participant's age in
months
Numerical Value
1 = Male
2 = Female
78-104
Ethnicity A participant's ethnicity 1 = African American
2 = Hispanic
3 = White, non Hispanic
1 = Special Education
2 = Gifted and Talented
3 = Regular Education
Economic Status A participant's economic 1 = Not economically identified
status 2 = Free Lunch
3 = Reduced Lunch
At-Risk
Migrant
A participant's at-risk
status
A participant's migrant
status
0=No
l=Yes
0 = No
1 =Yes
LEP A participant's Limited 0 = No
English Proficiency status 1 = Yes
Educational Status A participant's
educational status
69
Table 3 (continued)
Variables
Accuracy Based on percentage of 1 = Listening
words read correctly 2 = Instructional (90 - 94%)
3 = Independent (95 - 100%)
Reading Fluency Number of words read 0-200
correct per minute
Reading Comprehension Number of questions 0-8
answered correctly,
maximum of 8 correct
detail in Table 3. The Accuracy Variable is coded as Listening, Instructional or
Independent. Those students in the Independent category read with 95% or better
accuracy. Students in the Instructional category read with 90-94% accuracy and students
in the Listening category reached frustration level (89% or less) in terms of accuracy and
the test administrator dropped down a level and read a story orally to the students to test
for listening comprehension.
Field (2005) described regression analysis as being able to fit "a predictive model
to our data and use that model to predict values of the dependent variable
(DV) from one or more independent variables (IVs). Simple regression seeks to predict
an outcome variable from a single predictor variable whereas multiple regression seeks to
predict an outcome from several predictors" (Field, 2005, p. 144). The hypotheses being
tested is listed below. Y; is the outcome variable, reading comprehension and Xj is the /th
participant's score on the predictor variable, reading fluency, bi is the gradient of the
straight line fitted to the data and bo is the intercept of the line; these are the regression
coeffecients. s t is a residual term representing the difference between the score
predicted by the line for participant i and the score that participant / actually obtained
(Field, 2005).
Y\ = (bo + biXi) + s,
To determine the line of best of fit, the method of least squares was used. The
residuals indicated the points that lie above and below the line. Two goodness of fit
indices were used to assess how well this line fits the actual data. The first was to
calculate the value of R , known as the coefficient of determination, which represents
"the amount of variance in the outcome explained by the model (SSM) relative to how
much variation there was to explain in the first place (SSj)" (Field, 2005, p. 148). SSM
the model sum of squares using the differences between the mean value of Y and the
regression line. SSj is the total sum of squares using the differences between the
observed data and the mean value of Y. The model is as follows:
SSr
A second use of the sums of squares was through the use of the F-test. According to
Field (2005),
This test is based upon the ratio of the improvement due to the model
(SSM) and the difference between the model and the observed data (SSR).
In fact, rather than using the sums of squares themselves, we take the mean
sums of squares (referred to as the mean squares or MS). To work out the
mean sums of squares it is necessary to divide by the degrees of freedom....
71
For SSM the degrees of freedom are simply the number of variables in
the model, and for SSR they are the number of observations minus the
number of parameters being estimated . . . . The result is the mean squares
for the model (MSM) and the residual mean squares (MSR). (p. 150)
The model is as follows:
If the model is good, the F-ratio will be larger than 1 as the top half of the above equation
should be larger than the bottom half. F was also tested for statistical significance.
In utilizing regression analysis, Osbourne and Waters (2002) pointed out that four
assumptions are made that researchers must test. First, regression analysis assumes that
variables are normally distributed. "Outliers can be identified either through visual
inspection of histograms or frequency distributions, or by converting data to z-scores"
(Osbourne & Waters, 2002, p. 2). Second, regression analysis assumes a linear
relationship between the independent and dependent variable. This was tested through
the use of scatterplots of residuals to examine linear and curvilinear relationships. A
third assumption is that the variables are measured without error and thus are reliable.
This was tested through the calculation of Cronbach's alpha. The fourth and final
assumption is the assumption of homoscedasticity. "Homoscedasticity means that the
variance of errors is the same across all levels of the IV (independent variable). When
the variance of errors differs at different values of the IV, heteroscedasticity is indicated"
(Osbourne & Waters, 2002, p. 6). In order to check this assumption, the researcher made
a visual examination of "the standardized residuals (the errors) by the regression
standardized predicted value" (Osbourne and Waters, 20020, p. 6).
72
Limitations of the Study
A first limitation is the study was limited to first grade students. Future studies
can focus on other grade levels.
As with all correlation research, a second limitation of this study is that the
correlations that were obtained in this study through multiple regression do not establish
a definitive cause-and-effect relationship between reading fluency and reading
comprehension. The correlations however, described the strength and direction of the
relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension.
Thirdly, Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) also pointed out that "another problem with
using correlational statistics to identify variables that may be causally related to complex
behavior patterns or abilities is that success in many of the complex activities that interest
us probably can be achieved in different ways" (p. 329). For example, Student A may
have difficulty reading because the males in his family do not place a high importance on
reading. Student B, on the other hand, also male, may excel in reading because males in
his family are expected to be successful.
A fourth limitation of the study is the complex nature of reading itself. For
example, it is possible for a student to decode effortlessly yet be unable to comprehend.
Even though one has mastered one of the component parts of reading, does not indicate
mastery of reading itself. Causal relationship studies break "down complex abilities and
behavior patterns into simpler components" (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 329).
A fifth limitation is related to the comprehension measure itself, specifically prior
knowledge.
73
. . . each student's prior knowledge is likely to influence his or her performance
on comprehension questions. Because there is no way to measure what portion of
students' success in answering comprehension questions is based on their prior
knowledge, it is impossible to measure the amount of comprehension that was
caused by their reading ability alone (Daly, Chafouleas, & Skinner, 2005, p. 137).
Summary
The study described the strength and nature of the relationship between gender,
ethnicity, educational status, reading fluency and reading comprehension. From this,
educators will be able to determine whether or not reading fluency can predict reading
comprehension. Furthermore, as Shanahan (2002) pointed out, the value in the research
is also the ensuing discussion. This study provides more empirical data for first grade
teachers to formulate their thoughts and language arts curriculum decisions. If the
empirical evidence holds, and there is indeed a significant relationship between reading
fluency and reading comprehension the implications for first grade language arts
curriculum are exciting. With proper alterations in curriculum and appropriate focus on
increasing reading fluency, reading comprehension will increase as well. First grade
students will be on their way to reading on grade level and being successful life-long
learners.
Chapter One of the research proposal introduced the research question and
directional research hypotheses, as well as outlined the need for the study. Chapter Two
reviewed the literature concerning reading fluency and reading comprehension in terms
of historical background, theoretical framework and current research developments.
Chapter Three described the methodology to be used for the study. In Chapter Three, the
74
research design, the participants, the instrumentation, the data collection procedures, the
data analysis procedures and the limitations of the study are described in detail. Protocol
sheets of the TPRI for the individual students and class summary sheets can be found in
Appendix A and B respectively. In Chapter Four, the results of the study will be
presented.
Results. Chapter Four
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to understand the relationship of reading fluency
and reading comprehension. Chapter Four will explain the results of the study, beginning
with descriptive statistics about the sample. Then the multiple regression analysis results
will be reported in regards to the relationship between fluency and reading
comprehension as well as the controlling variables.
Descriptive Statistics
The sample being studied consisted of 234 students from a southern rural school
district in the southwestern United States. Looking at Table 4, one can see that the males
comprised 51.7% of the total sample with females making up the other 48.3%. There
was a large Hispanic representation (54.3%) with a smaller White, non-Hispanic sample
(30.8%) and even smaller African-American proportions of the sample (15.0%). Of
significance was that 46.6% of the sample was at-risk and 38.9% were on free / reduced
lunch. The campus was a Title I campus. Table 5 indicates that the mean age at the time
of end of year testing was 88.37 months (7.4 years). The standard deviations for the
demographic data were low, indicating that the data were clustered closely around the
mean.
76
Table 4
First Grade Student Sample 2006-2007
Gender Number Percent
Male
Female
121
113
51.7
48.3
Ethnicity Number Percent
African American
Hispanic
White
35
127
72
15.0
54.3
30.8
Educational Status Number Percent
Special Education
Gifted and Talented
Regular Education
At-Risk
Limited English Proficient
Migrant
17
13
204
109
30
8
7.3
5.6
87.2
46.6
12.8
3.4
Economic Status Number Percent
Not economically identified 143
Free Lunch 24
Reduced Lunch 67
61.1
10.3
28.6
n = 234
77
Looking at the Beginning of Year (BOY) results in Table 6, the mean fluency rate
was 37.90 words correct per minute with a standard deviation of 16.38. Also of
significance was the Total Reading Comprehension mean of 4.66 (with a possible high of
8.00). The BOY Accuracy results reveal a mean of 2.03 indicating that the average
student was Instructional in terms of accuracy at the beginning of the year. The
frequencies in Table 6, however, show 32.9% of the student sample in the Listening
category, 31.2% of the sample in the Instructional category, and 35.9% in the
Independent category. Those students in the Independent category read with 95% or
better accuracy. Students in the Instructional category read with 90-94% accuracy and
students in the Listening category reached frustration level (89% or less) in terms of
accuracy and the test administrator dropped down a level and read a story orally to the
students to test for listening comprehension.
Looking at the End of Year (EOY) results in Table 7, the mean fluency rate was
61.32 words correct per minute with a standard deviation of 23.64. Also of significance
was the Total Reading Comprehension mean of 6.68 (with a possible high of 8.00). The
EOY Accuracy results revealed a mean of 2.76 indicating that the average student was
Instructional - Independent in terms of accuracy at the end of the year. The frequencies
in Table 7, however, show a more complete picture with 0.9% of the student population
in the Listening category, 21.8% of the population in the Instructional category, and
77.4% in the Independent category.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics
Variable
Gender
Ethnicity
DOB
Educational Status
Migrant
At-Risk
LEP
Economic Status
BOY Accuracy
BOY Fluency
BOY Total Rdg Comp
EOY Accuracy
EOY Fluency
EOY Total Rdg Comp
DiffAcc
Diff Fluency
Diff Total Rdg Comp
Mean
1.48
2.16
88.37
2.80
.03
.47
.13
1.68
2.03
37.90
4.66
2.76
61.32
6.68
.74
35.11
2.02
Standard Deviation
.50
.66
5.17
.55
.18
.50
.34
.89
.83
16.14
2.04
.45
23.64
1.27
.80
20.81
1.93
n = 234
Table 6
Frequencies for Beginning of
Year
BOY Accuracy Number Percent
Listening
Instructional
Independent
77
73
84
32.9
31.2
35.9
BOY Total Reading Comp
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Number
~9
11
14
28
44
39
42
31
16
Percent
Ts
4.7
6.0
12.0
18.8
16.7
17.9
13.2
6.8
n = 234
Table 7
Frequencies for End of Year
EOY Accuracy Number Percent
Listening
Instructional
Independent
2
51
181
.9
21.8
77.4
EOY Total Reading Comp Number Percent
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
5
11
20
46
81
70
.4
2.1
4.7
8.5
19.7
34.6
29.9
n = 234
The mean difference in accuracy was .74 with a standard deviation of .81. The
mean difference in fluency was 23.42 with a standard deviation of 7.51. The mean
difference in total reading comprehension was 2.02 with a standard deviation of 1.93.
Students, on average answered two more questions correctly on the comprehension
portion at the end of the year than they did at the beginning of the year.
81
The Relationship Between Fluency and Comprehension
Table 8 presents the correlation matrix for difference in total Reading
Comprehension, age, educational status, economic status, and difference in fluency. The
data in Table 8 reflects the differences between the end of year fluency and reading
comprehension scores and the beginning of year fluency and reading comprehension
scores. The correlations indicated that there is a positive relationship between fluency
and comprehension (R = .41). The results of the Pearson's chi-square test indicated that
there was a significant association between at-risk and ethnicity x (2) = 19.53, p<.001.
The crosstabulation table can be seen in Table 9.
Table 8. Correlation Matrix for Difference in Total Reading Comprehension, Age,
Educational Status, Economic Status, and Difference in Fluency
(!) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Difference in Reading 1.00 -.17** -.12** -.14** 4 1 *
Comprehension
Age -.17** 1.00 -.12** -.09** -.14
Educational Status -.12** -.12** 1.00 .05 .01
Economic Status -.14** -.09 .05 1.00 -.01
Difference in Fluency .41* -.14** .01 -.01 1.00
Note. N = 234. Difference in Total Reading Comprehension is the dependent variable.
Correlations marked with a * are significant at p<.001 and correlations marked with a **
are significant at p<.05.
82
Table 9. Ethnicity by At-Risk Cross-Tabulation
Ethnicity
Total
African-American
Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
No
16
55
54
125
At-Risk
Yes
19
72
18
109
Total
35
127
72
234
The Model Summary from SPSS provided the R, R2, adjusted R2, and standard
error for the overall regression model. The R2 indicated that 17.1% of the variance in
reading comprehension can be explained fluency. When looking at the controlling
variables, R indicated that 35.6% of the variance in reading comprehension can be
explained by a combination of fluency, age, gender, ethnicity, educational status, migrant
at-risk, LEP, and economic status. By calculating the difference in the Adjusted R2 and
R , the researcher determined the variance if the study were generalized from the sample
to the population as a whole. The difference in Adjusted R2 and R2 was .004 when
examining the dependent and independent variable. The difference was .026 when
adding the controlling variables. Thus, if this study were generalized to the population as
a whole, one could expect a .4% variance when looking at the dependent and independent
variable and 2.6% variance when adding the controlling variables.
Table 10 shows the multiple regression analysis for the relationship between the
difference in total reading comprehension, gender, ethnicity, age, educational status,
migrant, at-risk, LEP, economic status, and difference in fluency. The amount of
83
variance explained by the regression equation is statistically significant, as shown by F =
13.77, (p<.05).
Table 10 presents the standardized and unstandardized regression coeffecients and
their accompanying t values and levels of significance. The t values that are statistically
significant at p<.05 are ethnicity, age, migrant, at-risk, LEP, and difference in fluency.
All other values are p>.05. The beta weights provided an indication of the relative
contribution of the variable reading comprehension when the other variables are
controlled. The greatest influence was at-risk, followed by difference in fluency. The
dependent variable, difference in reading comprehension, was negatively impacted by
ethnicity, and age. The comparison group, coded 0, for migrant is a person who is not a
migrant. The comparison group, coded 0, for at-risk is a person who is not at-risk. The
regression coefficients for both migrant and at-risk are positive indicating that the
dependent variable, difference in reading comprehension, is positively impacted by being
either a migrant or being at-risk. The comparison group, coded 0, for LEP is a person
who is not LEP. The regression coefficient for LEP is negative indicating that the
dependent variable, difference in reading comprehension, is negatively impacted by being
LEP.
84
Table 10. Multiple Regression Analysis of the Relationship Between Reading
Comprehension, Gender, Ethnicity, Age, Educational Status, Migrant, At-Risk, LEP,
Economic Status, and Fluency
B Beta t p
(Constant)
Gender
Ethnicity
Age
Ed. Status
Migrant
At-Risk
LEP
Eco. Status
Difference in Fluency
Note. R2 = .36, F (9,224) = 13.77, p. = .001
Dependent Variable: Difference in Reading Comprehension
8.43
-.09
-.50
-.07
-.27
1.20
1.34
-.84
.02
.03
-.02
-.17
-.18
-.08
.11
.35
-.15
.01
.28
4.08
-.41
-2.86
-3.20
-1.38
2.05
5.19
-2.39
.16
4.76
.00
.69
.01
.01
.17
.05
.00
.02
.87
.00
Summary
Chapter One of the research proposal introduced the research question and
directional research hypotheses, as well as outlined the need for the study. Chapter Two
reviewed the literature concerning reading fluency and reading comprehension in terms
of historical background, theoretical framework and current research developments.
85
Chapter Three described the methodology to be used for the study including the research
design, the participants, the instrumentation, the data collection procedures, the data
analysis procedures and the limitations of the study. In Chapter Four, the results of the
study, beginning with descriptive statistics about the sample were presented. Then the
multiple regression analysis results were reported in regards to the relationship between
fluency and reading comprehension as well as the controlling variables. Chapter Five
will discuss these results in further detail.
Discussion. Chapter Five
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to describe the relationship of reading fluency and
reading comprehension. Chapter Five will explain the significant findings of the study,
implications of the study for current research, implications for future research, and
implications for current practices.
Significant Findings of the Study
The purpose of the study was to describe the relationship between reading fluency
and reading comprehension of first grade students. Given this purpose, the study
addressed the following research question: What is the relationship between reading
fluency and reading comprehension of first grade students? At R = .41, there was a
strong positive relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension. Those
students who have higher reading fluency scores will have higher reading
comprehension. Conversely, those students with low reading fluency scores will have
low reading comprehension. Fluency and comprehension in first grade students are
related.
Furthermore, as indicated by R , 17% of the variance in reading comprehension
can be explained by reading fluency. Reading is a complex activity and, as such, is
impacted by many things. Based on the R of the controlling variables, 35.6% of the
variance in reading comprehension is explained by other factors, such as age, gender,
ethnicity, educational status, migrant, at-risk, LEP, and economic status. The regression
coefficients indicated that at-risk and fluency are the greatest contributing factors. While
87
the at-risk findings were not consistent with current literature, it is possible that the
school was conducting interventions with the at-risk population, thus raising their fluency
scores. This is worth further investigation.
Implications for Current Research
The results of this study are consistent with the findings of Berninger, et al.
(2006), Stage and Jacobsen (2001), Vaughn, et al. (2000), Rasinski (1990) and Stahl and
Heubach (2005) who all found a relationship between fluency and comprehension.
Berninger, et al. (2006) found a relationship between fluency and comprehension in
second grade students as did Stahl and Heubach (2005). Stage and Jacobsen (2001)
looked at fourth graders. Vaughn, et al. (2000) examined third grade students while
Rasinski (1990) studied third and fifth grade students. All of these researchers were able
to establish a positive relationship between fluency and comprehension at their respective
grade levels. The current study established this relationship in first grade students.
Implications for Future Research
This research study, like many of the ones that have gone before it, has achieved
its purpose and answered its research question. However, in answering the research
question, more questions then come into focus and there exist implications for future
research.
The relationship between fluency and comprehension has been established in first
grade students. Based on the concept that the purpose of reading is comprehension
(Bender & Larkin, 2003), this study has determined that comprehension can be improved
by an increase in fluency. However, this is one study with a sample from one rural
88
community in the southwestern United States. Other similar studies should be done with
larger samples in other parts of the country to create more generalizability in the study.
In addition to replicating the current study on a larger scale, the next step in the
research is to determine the best ways to improve fluency in first grade students.
Suggestions include choral reading, repeated readings, poetry, and reader's theater.
Studies have been done that examine the benefits of such repeated reading activities,
however, they have not been done with first graders. For example, Martinez, Roser and
Strecker (1999) examined the effect of reader's theater in second grade students.
Dowhower (1987) described the effects of repeated reading on second-grade readers'
fluency and comprehension. O'Connor, White and Swanson (2007) looked at repeated
and continuous reading with second and fourth grade students. Repeated reading has been
used successfully in studies from second (Dowhower, 1987) through eighth grade
(Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer & Lane, 2000). Furthermore, repeated reading has
been studied on students who read between first (Weinstein & Cooke, 1992) and fifth
grade levels (Homan, Klesius, & Hite, 1993). It is now time for studies to be conducted
on actual first graders.
Implications for Practice
According to the TPRI manual, "once students begin to decode individual words
automatically and rapidly, they are on their way to becoming fluent readers" (TPRI,
2006, p. 42). To be considered a fluent reader in first grade, a student should be reading
approximately 60 words per minute by year's end. Students reading less than 40 words
per minute will need help to attain automaticity through regular practice opportunities
(Good, Simmons, Kame'enui, Kaminski, & Wallin, 2002). The most recent national oral
89
reading fluency norms were published by Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006). Table 11
indicates the norms that were developed for first grade based on data from schools in 23
states.
Table 11
First Grade Oral Reading Fluency Norms
Percentile Winter Spring
Words Correct Per Minute Words Correct Per Minute
"90 81 HI
75 47 82
50 23 53
25 12 28
10 6 15
Standard Deviation 32 39
Number 16,950 19,434
Note. Adapted from Hasbrouck & Tindal (2006).
In order to become a fluent reader, and consequently comprehend well, a student
needs multiple practice opportunities throughout the day. This can be achieved through a
variety of ways. Those following a balanced literacy approach to teaching reading may
find the following suggestions useful. The first fifteen minutes of the reading block can
be spent on whole group activities, such as the morning message or some other form of
interactive writing. During this fifteen minutes, the teacher can also address new words
for the word wall, as well as review word wall words, and high frequency words. The
90
next fifteen minutes of the reading block can be spent on a mini-lesson taught with either
a read-aloud or shared reading. Using the read-aloud or shared reading, the teacher
accomplishes several things. First and foremost, the teacher is able to model fluent
reading for the students. Second, the teacher is able to use the Think Aloud strategy to
model self-questioning and show students his or her thinking processes while reading,
thus improving comprehension (Davey, 1983). Third, the teacher can teach the strategy
lesson of the day using authentic literature. Fourth, during shared reading, on days when
the big book or poem is being repeated, the students can read chorally / antiphonally to
work on prosody (expression).
The next phase of the reading block should be spent in guided reading and
stations. Guided reading group time should include: a running record on one student, a
fluency rate assessment on one student (to assess fluency growth), familiar reading (to
increase fluency), traditional word work, and work with a new leveled text. It is during
the work with the new book that comprehension strategies should be taught. In order to
assess fluency, teachers can use commercial fluency assessments or teachers can also
listen to children read any passage and rate their reading performance using a rubric. The
rubric in Table 12 is one such rubric and was adapted by Rasinski and Padak (2008) from
a federal research project that was funded to determine the fluency of U.S. fourth graders.
While the teacher is with the guided reading group, the rest of the class can be at
literacy work stations. Stations should include a computer station, a listening station, a
library station, a word work station, a poetry station, and a "fluency" station. The
computer station can feature fluency software which is designed to increase fluency while
Table 12
Oral Reading Fluency Scale
5
Outstanding
4
Satisfactory
3
Unsatisfactory
2
Unsatisfactory
1
Unsatisfactory
Note. From Rasinski & Padak (2008), p. 35.
Appropriate phrasing. Regressions or
repetitions, if any, do not detract from
presentation. Expressive. Appropriate
rate. Few hesitations or stops.
Mostly appropriate phrasing. Expressive
interpretation inconsistent. Rate generally
appropriate. Occasional hesitations or
stops.
Reads in short inappropriate phrases. Little
expressive interpretation. Rate
inappropriately slow. Extended hesitations
and stops.
Word-by-word reading. Very little or no
expression or interpretation. Excessively
slow (or fast) rate.
Excessive word recognition errors
significantly disrupt fluency and meaning
92
maintaining comprehension. Also useful are the electronic book programs. In a study by
Grimshaw, Dungworth, McKnight and Morris (2007), researchers found that the
provision of narration in the electronic books led to "significantly higher comprehension
scores than when narration was absent" (p. 583). After following along with the
electronic book, students can then create electronic story maps and other organizers to
demonstrate their comprehension of the book.
The listening station is where students can follow along with books on tape or
CD. According to Zutell and Rasinski (1991), "all readers need models of fluent reading
in their literacy experiences" (p. 216). The listening station is one place where readers
can get that modeling while doing independent practice (Rasinski, 2008).
At the library station, students can engage in paired reading, also known as buddy
reading. Here students read familiar books with the support of a buddy who is more
fluent in order to increase the individual's fluency (Diller, 2007). This works by having
the more fluent reader follow along silently when the student is ready to read alone. He
doesn't chime in again until the other reader makes a mistake (Rasinski, 2008). Students
can also read books independently and write responses to books, again demonstrating
their comprehension of the books read.
At the word work station, students can do a variety of activities. Students
struggling with decoding in the early part of first grade can continue with letter sorts and
blending sounds to make words. Students who are ready for more advanced word work
can do activities such as sorting words, making words and illustrating words (Diller,
2003). They can also "play games with high-frequency words that encourage automatic
recognitions, such as Concentration, Memory, or Hangman ... [to] help students read
93
more automatically as they quickly recognize more words embedded in text" (Diller,
2007, p. 84).
In order to work on prosody (expression), students can participate at the poetry
station. At the poetry station, students will read poetry, build poems, change poems,
listen to poems, tape record poems to take home, write poems, and find special words or
kinds of words in poems (Diller, 2003). When reading the poems and taping the poems,
students will work on reading in phrases expressively as well as developing rhythm and
rhyme. This will help their phrasing and intonation to improve (prosody) thereby
improving their fluency.
At the "fluency" station, the teacher has several options which can be changed
throughout the year. During the first part of the first grade, this can be a Big Book
Station wherein the students engage in repeated reading of familiar text. According to
Blum and Koskinen (1991),
repeated reading offers considerable benefits as a strategy for enhancing fluency
and comprehension while fostering expertise. This approach seems to contribute
to an increase in content and strategy knowledge as well as motivation. In
addition, repeated reading procedures allow students to work at a level of
difficulty where they can be successful" (p. 199).
This "fluency" station can also become a Reader's Theater station. In reader's theater,
students read from scripts they are holding. "Without movement, costumes, props or
scenery, the performers have only one attribute to make their performance meaningful
and satisfying: their voices. And in order to use their voices well, performers must
practice the text beforehand" (Rasinski, 2003, p. 105). It is this repeated practice (also
94
known as repeated reading) that builds fluency. The performance of the Reader's Theater
scripts also lends an authentic purpose for the reading. Researchers have found that
students can gain an average of 1.1 years growth in reading during a ten-week period
when reader's theater is implemented in the classroom (Martinez, Roser, & Strecker,
1999). To keep this station fresh throughout the year, it can also become a recording
station where students record their reading, listen to their reading, and self-evaluate using
a fluency rubric.
After guided reading and literacy work stations, teachers should spend five to ten
minutes in share time, where students share what they worked on and learned in work
stations. Teachers should also include 20 minutes of independent reading at an
appropriate point in their day.
Summary
Chapter One of the research proposal introduced the research question and
directional research hypotheses, as well as outlined the need for the study. Chapter Two
reviewed the literature concerning reading fluency and reading comprehension in terms
of historical background, theoretical framework and current research developments.
Chapter Three described the methodology to be used for the study including the research
design, the participants, the instrumentation, the data collection procedures, the data
analysis procedures and the limitations of the study. In Chapter Four, the results of the
study, beginning with descriptive statistics about the sample were presented. Then the
multiple regression analysis results were reported in regards to the relationship between
fluency and reading comprehension as well as the controlling variables. Chapter Five
explained the significant findings of the study, implications of the study for current
95
research, implications for future research, and implications for current practices. These
implications are especially exciting when one considers the impact practitioners can have
on their first graders if they introduce fluency instruction to complement their reading
instruction. Many of the fluency activities are simple and easy to assimilate into existing
curriculum. Furthermore, these activities will improve comprehension, thereby creating
better readers. Better readers means successful citizens (NEA, 2007). Furthermore, "The
more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more
places you'll go" (Seuss, 1978). As for the children, as Dr. Seuss (1990) would say, "and
will you succeed? Yes! You will, indeed! (98 and 3/4 percent guaranteed.) KID, YOU'LL
MOVE MOUNTAINS!"
References
Allinder, R.M., Dunse, L., Brunken, CD., and Obermiller-Krolikowski, H.J. (2001).
Improving fluency in at-risk readers and students with learning disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 22(1), 48-54.
Allington, R.L. (1999). Fluency: A vital key to comprehension. Instructor, 113(5), 12-
13.
Allington, R.L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36,
556-561.
Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-
based programs. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
Allington, R.L., and McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). Looking back, looking forward: A
conversation about teaching reading in the 21st century. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35(1), 136-153.
Almasi, J.F. (2003). Teaching strategic processes in reading. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T. & Fielding, L.G. (1988). Growth in reading and how
children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3),
285-303.
Applegate, M.D., Quinn, K.B. & Applegate, A.J. (2006). Profiles in comprehension.
The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 48-57.
Archer, A.L., Gleason, M.M. & Vachon, V.L. (2003). Decoding and fluency:
Foundation for struggling older readers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly,
26(2), 89-101.
97
Barton, J. & Sawyer, D.M. (2003). Our students are ready for this: Comprehension
instruction in the elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 57(4), 334-347.
Begeny, J.C. (2006). Assisting low-performing readers with a group-based reading
fluency intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 91-107.
Bender, W.N. & Larkin, M.J. (2003). Reading strategies for elementary students with
learning disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton, CM. (2006). Paths to reading
comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
39(4), 334-351.
Biancarosa, G. (2005). After third grade. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 16-22.
Bishop, P.A., Reyes, C. & Pflaum, S.W. (2006). Read smarter, not harder: Global
reading comprehension strategies. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 66-69.
Blachowicz, C.L.Z. & Fisher, P. (2004). Vocabulary lessons. Educational Leadership,
61(6), pp. 66-69.
Blau, L. (1999). 5 surefire strategies for developing reading fluency. Instructor, 110(7),
28-30.
Blaunstein, P. & Lyon, R. (2006). Why kids can't read: Challenging the status quo in
education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Blevins, W. Building fluency: Lessons and strategies for reading success. New York:
Scholastic.
Block, C.C. & Israel, S.E. (2005). Reading First and beyond: The complete guide for
teachers and literacy coaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Block, C.C, Rodgers, L.L., & Johnson, R.B. (2004). Comprehension process
98
instruction: Creating reading success in grades K-3. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Blum, I.H., & Koskinen, P.S. (1991). Repeated reading: A strategy for enhancing
fluency and fostering expertise. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 195-200.
Bond, G.L. & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade
reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5-142.
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R.M. (2007). Instruction of
metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary
achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.
Brueckner, L.J. (1939). The changing elementary school. New York: Inor Publishing
Company.
Bryant, D.P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, Allison, & Hougen, M.
(2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in
general education middle-school content area classes. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 23(4), 238+.
Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2002) The relationship between performance on a measure of
oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment
Test. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from
http://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/TechnicalReportl.pdf
Bullion-Mears, A., McCauley, J.K., & McWhorter, J.Y. (2007). Erupting with great
force: Performing text to enhance reading comprehension. Science Scope, 31(1),
42-47.
Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., Kame'nui, E.J., Tarver, S.G. & Jungjohann, K. (2006).
Teaching struggling and at-risk readers. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Cassidy, J. & Wenrich, Judith K. (1997). What's hot, what's not for 1997. Reading
Today, 14(4), 34.
Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2000). What's hot, what's not for 2000. Reading Today,
17(3), 1,28.
Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2003). What's hot, what's not for 2003. Reading Today,
20(3), 1,18.
Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2004). What's hot, what's not for 2004. Reading Today,
21(5), 3-4.
Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2005). What's hot, what's not for 2005. Reading Today,
22(3), 1,8-9.
Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2006). What's hot, what's not for 2006. Reading Today,
23(3), 1,8-9.
Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2007). What's hot, what's not for 2007. Reading Today,
24(4), 1,10-11.
Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2008). What's hot for 2008. Reading Today, 25(4), 1,10-11.
Cates, G.L. & Rhymer, K.N. (2006). Effects of explicit timing on elementary students'
oral reading rates of word phrases. Reading Improvement, 43(3), 148-156.
100
Center for Academic and Reading Skills & Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation,
and Statistics. (1998-1999). Technical Report: Texas Primary Reading
Inventory. Houston: University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center &
University of Houston.
Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J.S. (1978). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Chard, D.J., Pikulski, J J., & McDonagh, S.H. (2006). Fluency: The link between
decoding and comprehension for struggling readers. In Rasinski, T., Blachowicz,
C. & Lems, K. (2006). Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp.
39-61). New York: The Guilford Press.
Clark, K.F. & Graves, M.F. (2004). Scaffolding students' comprehension of text. The
Reading Teacher, 58(6), 570-579.
Cole, A.D. (2004). When reading begins: The teacher's role in decoding,
comprehension, and fluency. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Coiro, J. (2003). Rethinking comprehension strategies to better prepare students for
critically evaluating content on the internet. The New England Reading
Association Journal, 39(2), pp. 29-34.
Coiro, J. & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies
used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the
Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
Conderman, G. & Strobel, D. (2006). Problem solving with guided repeated oral reading
instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(1), 34-39.
101
Corcoran, C.A. & Davis, A.D. (2005). A study of the effects of readers' theater on
second and third grade special education students' fluency growth. Reading
Improvement, 42(2), 105-111.
Coyne, M.D., Kame'enui, E.J., Simmons, C. & Harn, B.A. (2004). Beginning reading
intervention as inoculation or insulin: First-grade reading performance of strong
responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2),
90-104.
Crowe, L.K. (2005). Comparison of two oral reading feedback strategies in improving
reading comprehension of school-age children with low reading ability. Remedial
and Special Education, 26(1), 32-42.
Daly III, E.J., Chafouleas, S. & Skinner, C.H. (2005). Interventions for reading
problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading
comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44-47.
Devault, R. & Joseph, L.M. (2004). Repeated readings combined with word boxes
phonics technique increases fluency levels of high school students with severe
reading delays. Preventing School Failure, 49(1), 22-27.
Diller, D. (2003). Literacy work stations: Making centers work. Portland, Maine:
Stenhouse Publishers.
Diller, D. (2007). Making the most of small groups: Differentiation for all. Markham,
Ontario: Pembroke Publishers Limited.
102
Dole, J.A. (2000). Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension. In Taylor, B.M.,
Graves, M.F., & Van Den Broek, P. (2000). Reading for meaning: Fostering
comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 52-69). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Dowhower, S.L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional
readers' fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 389-
406.
Dowrick, P.W., Kim-Rupnow, W.S., & Power, T.J. (2006). Video feedforward for
reading. The Journal of Special Education, 39(4), 194-207.
Duffy, G. (ed). (2003). Improving comprehension: 10 research-based principles.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
Duffy, G.G., Roehler, I.R. & Mason, J. (1984). Comprehension instruction:
Perspectives and suggestions. New York: Longman.
Duke, N.K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40-
44.
Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading
comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 481-533.
Durkin, D. (1983). Teaching them to read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Dymock, S. (2007). Comprehension strategy instruction: Teaching narrative text
structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 161-167.
Eilers, L.H. & Pinkley, C. (2006). Metacognitive strategies help students to comprehend
all text. Reading Improvement, 43(1), 13-29.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
103
Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can't read - and what you can do about it. New York:
Harper & Row.
Foorman, B.R., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Carlson, CD., Chen, D. Mouziaki, A., et al.
(1998). Technical Report: Texas Primary Reading Inventory [Tech. Rep.].
Austin: Texas Education Agency.
Fountas, I.C. & Pinnell, G.S. (2006). Teaching for comprehending and fluency: Thinking,
talking, and writing about reading, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word
recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal
of Special Education, 39(1), 34-44.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D. & Compton, D.L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development
in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency.
Exceptional Children, 71(1), 7-21.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K. & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an
indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2003). Education research: An introduction (7th
ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gambrell, L.B., Block, C.C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Improving comprehension
instruction: An urgent priority. In Block, C.C., Gambrell, L.B. & Pressley, M.
(eds.) (2002). Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research,
theory and classroom practice (pp. 3-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
104
Garan, E.M. (2002). Resisting reading mandates: How to triumph with the truth.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Garner, J.K., & Bochna, C.R. (2004). Transfer of a listening comprehension strategy to
independent reading in first-grade students. Early Childhood Education Journal,
32(2), 69-74.
Garriott, M. & Jones, L. (2005). Closing the fluency gap in the middle grades.
Principal, 85(1), 67-68.
Glenberg, A.M., Brown, M. & Levin, J.R. (2007). Enhancing comprehension in small
reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 32, 389-399.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.S., Kame'enui, E.J., Kaminski, R.A., & Wallin, J. (2002).
Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional
recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Tech. Rep. No. 11).
Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Graves, M.F., & Dykstra, R. (1997). Contextualizing the first-grade studies: What is the
best way to teach children to read? Reading Research Quarterly, 32(4), 342-344.
Gray, W.S. (1917). The relation of silent reading to economy in education. In Whipple,
G.M. (ed). (1917). Second report of the committee on minimal essentials in
elementary school subjects: Sixteenth yearbook of the national society for the
study of education, part I. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing, 17-32.
Greenwood, C.R., Tapia, Y., Abbott, M., & Walton, C. (2003). A building-based case
study of evidence-based literacy practices: Implementation, reading behavior,
105
and growth in reading fluency, K-4. The Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 95-
110.
Greenwood, S.C., & Flanigan, K. (2007). Overlapping vocabulary and comprehension:
Context clues complement semantic gradients. The Reading Teacher, 61(3), 249-
254.
Griffith, L.W. & Rasinski, T.V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher
incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58(2),
126-137.
Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C. & Morris, A. (2007). Electronic books:
Children's reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 38(4), 583-599.
Harris, T.L. & Hodges, R.E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of
reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to
enhance understanding. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke Publishers Limited.
Hasbrouck, J. & Tindal, G.A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable
assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.
Hertzberg, M. (2000). 'So we can learn something as well as doing something fun':
Learning about reading through readers' theatre. Australian Journal of Language
and Literacy, 23(1), 21+.
Hiebert, E.H. & Fisher, C.W. (2005). A review of the National Reading Panel's studies
on fluency: The role of text. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 443-460.
106
Hitchcock, C.H., Prater, M.A. & Dowrick, P.W. (2004). Reading comprehension and
fluency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade
students with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(2), 89-103.
Holly, J. (n.d.). Gradual release of responsibility. Retrieved April 29, 2006.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jhholly/gradualrelease.htm
Homan, S.P., Klesius, J.P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and
nonrepetitive strategies on students' fluency and comprehension. Journal of
Educational Research, 87(2), 94-99.
Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B., & Pullen, P.C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and
instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.
Johns, J.L. (2005). Fluency norms for students in grades one through eight. Illinois
Reading Council Journal. 33 (4), 3-8.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from
first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447.
Juel, C. & Deffes, R. (2004). Making words stick. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 30-
34.
Keehn, S. (2003). The effect of instruction and practice through readers theatre on young
readers' oral reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4), 40-61.
Kuhn, M.R. (2004/2005). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers:
Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 338-344.
Kuhn, M.R. & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21.
107
LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lagrou, R.J., Burns, M.K., Mizerek, E.A., & Mosack, J. (2006). Effect of text
presentation on reading fluency and comprehension: An exploratory analysis.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(2), 100-109.
Lapp, D., Fisher, D., & Grant, M. (2008). "You can read this text - I'll show you how":
Interactive comprehension instruction. Journal of adolescent & Adult Literacy,
51(5), pp. 372-383.
Lee, J., Grigg, W., and Donahue, P. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading 2007
(NCES 2007-496). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Lionetti, T.M., & Cole, C.L. (2004). A comparison of the effects of two rates of listening
while reading on oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27(2), 114-129.
Lutz, S.L., Guthrie, J.T. & Davis, M.C. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in
elementary school reading instruction. The Journal of Educational Research,
100(1), 3-20.
Manset-Williamson, G., & Nelson, J.M. (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction
for upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A
comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28(1), 59-
74.
Martinez, M., Roser, N.L. & Strecker, S. (1999). 'I never thought I could be a
star': A readers theatre ticket to fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52(4), 326-334.
108
Mastropiere, M.A., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading
fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 278-83+.
McGuinness, D. (2004). Early reading instruction: What science really tells us about
how to teach reading. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
McKenna, M.C. & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Maria, K. (1990). Reading comprehension instruction: Issues and strategies. Parkton,
MD: York Press.
Mercer, CD., Campbell, K.U., Miller, M.D., Mercer, K.D. & Lane, H.B. (2000). Effects
of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 179-189.
Minskoff, E. (2005). Teaching reading to struggling learners. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Company.
Moskal, M.K. & Blachowicz, C. (2006). Partnering for fluency. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Morrow, L.M. (1989). Using story retelling to develop comprehension. In Muth, K.D.
(ed). (1989). Children's comprehension of text: Research into practice (pp. 3 7 -
58). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Morrow, L.M., Gambrell, L.B. & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2003). Best practices in literacy
instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.
Moskal, M.K. (2006). Students self-managed repeated reading: Successful fluency
development for disfluent readers. Illinois Reading CouncilJournal, 34(1), pp. 3-
11.
109
National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. (2000). Report of the
national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, D.C.: NICHD.
Nelson-Herber, J. & Johnston, C.S. (1989). Questions and concerns about teaching
narrative and expository text. In Muth, K.D. (ed). (1989). Children's
comprehension of text: Research into practice (pp. 263-280). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Nathan, R.G. & Stanovich, K.E. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in
reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, XXX(3), 176-184.
National Endowment for the Arts (2007). To read or not to read: A question of national
consequence (Research Report #47). Washington, D.C.: Office of Research &
Analysis, National Endowment for the Arts.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development.
Nes, S.L. (2003). Using paired reading to enhance the fluency skills of less-skilled
readers. Reading Improvement, 40(4), 179-192.
Ness, M. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content-area
classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 229-231.
Nicholson, T. & Tan, A. (1999). Proficient word identification for comprehension. In
Thompson, G.B. & Nicolson, T. (eds.) (1999). Learning to read: Beyond
110
phonics andwhole language (pp. 150-173). New York: Teachers College
Press.
No child left behind act of 2001. (2002). Retrieved March 3, 2004.
http://vvww.ed.gov/policv/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Oakley, G. (2003). Improving oral reading fluency (and comprehension) through the
creation of talking books. Reading Online, 6(7). Retrieved April 7, 2004.
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art index.asp?HREF=oaklev/index.html
O'Connor, R.E., Harty, K.R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of Intervention in kindergarten
through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 532-538.
O'Connor, R.E., White, A., & Swanson, H.L. (2007). Repeated reading versus
continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Council
for Exceptional Children, 74(1), pp. 31-46.
Osborn, J., Lehr, F., & Hiebert, E.H. (2003). A Focus on Fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific
Resources for Education and Learning.
Osborne, Jason & Elaine Waters (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that
researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
8(2). Retrieved September 3, 2007 from
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=2.
Paquette, K.R., Fello, S.E. & Jalongo, M.R. (2007). The talking drawings strategy:
Using primary children's illustrations and oral language to improve
comprehension of expository text. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1),
65-73.
I l l
Pardo, L. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. TheReading
Teacher, 58(3), pp. 272-280.
Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L.R., Dole, J.A., & Duffy, G.G. (1992). Developing expertise in
reading comprehension. In Samuels, S.J. & Farstrup, A.E. (1992). What research
has to say about reading instruction (pp. 145-199). Newark,DE: International
Reading Association.
Pearson, P.D., & Duke, N.K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades.
In Block, C.C., & Pressley, M. (eds). (2002). Comprehension instruction:
Research-basedbest practices (pp. 247-258). New York: Guilford Publications.
Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.
Pikulski, J.J., & Chard, D.J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status
report. In Block, C.C. & Pressley, M. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Research-based best practices (pp. 11-27). New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M. (2002). Conclusion: Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the
future. In Block, C.C, Gambrell, L.B., & Pressley, M. (2002). Improving
comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice
(pp. 385-399). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pressley, M., Allington, R.L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C.C. & Morrow, L.M.
(2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-grade classrooms. New
York: The Guilford Press.
112
Pressley, M., Gaskins, I.W. & Fingeret, L. (2006). Instruction and development of
reading fluency in struggling readers. In Samuels, S.J. & Farstrup, A.E. (eds).
What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 47-69). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Pressley, M. & Hilden, K. (2006). Teaching reading comprehension. In McKeough, A.,
Phillips, L.M., Timmons, V., & Lupart, J.L. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding
Literacy Development: A Global View (pp. 49 - 64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Pressley, M, Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998).
Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159-194.
Quick, B.N. (1998). Beginning reading and developmentally appropriate practice (DAP):
Past, present, and future. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3/4), 253-272.
Rasinski, T. & Padak, N. (2000). Effective reading strategies: Teaching children who
find reading difficult. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Co.
Rasinski, T.V., & Hoffman, J.V. (2003). Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum.
Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 510-522.
Rasinski, T.V., Padak, N.D., Church, B.W., Fawcett, G., Hendershot, J., Henry, J.M.,
Moss, B.G., Peck, J.K., Pryor, E., & Roskos, K.A. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching word
recognition, spelling and vocabulary: Strategies from the reading teacher.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
113
Rasinski, T.V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word
recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Professional
Books.
Rasinski, T.V. (1990). Investigating measures of reading fluency. Educational Research
Quarterly, 14(3), 37-44.
Rasinski, T.V. & Padak, N. (2008). Evidence-Based Instruction in Reading: A
Professional Development Guide to Fluency. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Reutzel, D.R., Camperell, K., & Smith, J.A. (2002). Hitting the wall: Helping struggling
readers comprehend. In Block, C.C., Gambrell, L.B. & Pressley, M. (eds.)
(2002). Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory and
classroom practice (pp. 321-353). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reutzel, D.R., & Hollingsworth, P.M. (1993). Effects of fluency training on second
graders' reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 86(6), 325-
331.
Rhodes, L.K. & Dudley-Marling, C. (1996). Readers and writers with a difference: A
holistic approach to teaching struggling readers and writers. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Rinehart, S.D., Barksdale-Ladd, M.A., & Paterson, J.J. (1994). Increasing story recall
through prereading instruction: Use of advance organizers combined with
teacher-guided discussion. In Sturtevant, E.G. & Linek, W.M. (eds.). (1994).
Pathways for literacy: Learners teach and teachers learn (pp. 237-247).
Commerce, TX: The College Reading Association.
114
Robinson, H.A., Faraone, V., Hittleman, D.R., & Unruh, E. (1990). Reading
comprehension instruction 1783 - 1987: A review of trends and research.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem. Carbondale and Edwardsville,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Samuels, S.J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-
408.
Samuels, S.J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In Farstrup,
A.E., & Samuels, S.J. (eds.). (2002). What research has to say about reading
instruction, (pp. 166-183). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Samuels, S.J. & Kamil, M.L. (1984) Models of the reading process. In Pearson, P.D.,
Barr, R., Kamil, M.L., & Mosenthal, P.B. (Eds.). (1984). Handbook of reading
research (pp. 185-224). New York: Longman.
Samuels, S.J., Schermer, N. & Reinking, D. (1992). Reading fluency: Techniques for
making decoding automatic. In Samuels, S.J. & Farstrup, A.E. (1992). What
research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 124-144). Newark,DE:
International Reading Association.
Schwartz, J.I. (1988). Encouraging early literacy: An integrated approach to reading
and writing in N-3. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Seuss, Dr. (1978). I Can Read With My Eyes Shut. New York: Random House Books
for Young Readers.
Seuss, Dr. (1990). Oh, The Places You '11 Go. New York: Random House Books for
Young Readers.
115
Shanahan, T. (2002). What reading research says: The promises and limitations of
applying research to reading education. In Farstrup, A.E. & Samuels, S.J. (Eds.).
(2002). What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 8-24).Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Snow, C.E. & Sweet, A.P. (2003). Reading for comprehension. In Sweet, A.P. & Snow,
C.E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension, (pp. 1-11). New York:
The Guilford Press.
Speece, D.L. & Ritchey, K.D. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral
reading fluency in young children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38(5), 387-399.
Stage, S.A. & Jacobsen, M.D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated
performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology
Review, 30(3), 407-419.
Stahl, K.A.D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction
in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), pp. 598-609.
Stahl, S.A., & Heubach, K. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of
Literacy Research, 37(1), 25-60. In Dougherty Stahl, K.A., & McKenna, M.C.
(Eds.). (2006). Reading research at work: Foundations of effective practice (pp.
177-213). New York: The Guilford Press.
Stahl, S.A., Jacobson, M.G., Davis, C.E. & Davis, R.L. Prior knowledge and difficult
vocabulary in the comprehension of unfamiliar text. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24, 27-43. In Dougherty Stahl, K.A., & McKenna, M.C. (Eds.).
116
(2006). Reading research at work: Foundations of effective practice (pp. 284-
302). New York: The Guilford Press.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), pp.
360-407.
Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly,
16(1), pp. 32-71.
Stecker, S.K., Roser, N.L. & Martinez, M.G. (1998). Understanding oral reading
fluency. In Shanahan, T., & Rodriguez-Brown, F.V. (Eds.), 47' yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 295-310). Chicago: National Reading
Conference.
Sweet, A.P. & Snow, C.S. (2002). Reconceptualizing reading comprehension. In Block,
C.C., Gambrell, L.B. & Pressley, M. (eds.) (2002). Improving comprehension
instruction: Rethinking research, theory and classroom practice (pp. 3-16). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Texas primary reading inventory (2006). Austin, Texas: The University of Texas
System and Texas Education Agency.
Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading:
A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252-261.
Therrien, W.J. and Kubina, R.M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated
reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 156-160.
Topping, K.J. (2006). Building reading fluency: Cognitive, behavioral, and
117
socioemotional factors and the role of peer-mediated learning. In Samuels, S.J. &
Farstrup, A.E. (eds). What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 106-
129). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Torgesen, J.K. & Hudson, R.F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling
readers. In Samuels, S.J. & Farstrup, A.E. (eds). What research has to say about
fluency instruction (pp. 130-158). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Vaughn, S., Chard, D.J., Bryant, D.P., Coleman, M., Tyler, B.J., Linan-Thompson, S., &
Kouzekanani, K. (2000). Fluency and comprehension interventions for third-
grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 325+.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Research-based methods of reading
instruction: Grades K-3. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D.P., Dickson, S. & Blozis,
S.A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties.
Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 301+.
Van Keer, H. (2004). Fostering reading comprehension in fifth grade by explicit
instruction in reading strategies and peer tutoring. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, pp.37-70.
Van Keer, H. & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction
and peer tutoring on second and fifth graders' reading comprehension and self-
efficacy perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 291-329.
Wallace, R., Pearman, C , Hail, C, & Hurst, B. (2007). Writing for comprehension.
118
Reading Horizons, 48(1), 41-56.
Walley, C. (1993). An invitation to reading fluency. The Reading Teacher, 46 (6), pp.
526-527.
Weinstein, G. & Cooke, N.L. (1992). The effects of two repeated reading interventions
on generalization of fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 21-28.
Welsch, R.G. (2006). 20 ways to ... increase oral reading fluency. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 41 (3), 180-183.
Wendler, D., Samuels, S.J. & Moore, V.K. (1989). Comprehension instruction of
award-winning teachers, teachers with master's degrees, and other teachers.
Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 382-401.
Williams, J.P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students:
A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), pp. 6-18.
Worthy, J. and Broaddus, K. (2002). Fluency beyond the primary grades: From group
performance to silent, independent reading. The Reading Teacher, 55(4), 334-
343.
Zutell, J. & Rasinski, T.V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students' oral
reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 211-217.
Appendix A
TPRI Student Record Sheet
120
T ! P I R I 1 • Student Record Sheet Grade 1
Student:
Teacher:
Date of Administration;
BOY . ./ /
MOY / /
EOY /. . . /
• Start of Beginning-of-Year (BOY) Screening Section •
Screening 1 Graphophonemic Knowledge
-
1
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
10.
Utter Soupd
L 1
0 o
N n
1 i
R r
E e
H h
W w
U u
Y y
AnswH*
L 1 / I / |
; O o Ibl \
! N n /n / '
! 1 i IV
' R r hi
j E e lei
| H h Ibl
| W w Ivjl
| U u /u /
i Y y /y/ /T or e/
TOTAL CORRECT: flOpossibte;
' ^ ^ n
Branching Rules
8-10 correct—Developed: Go to Screening 2, page 47.
0-7 cornet—Still Developing: Go to Screening 3, page 48.
Screening 2 I Word Reading Screening 3 Phonemic Awareness
ami ftie#jl»'»
1. become
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
school j
queen !
great <
summer |
honey I
push I
asked i
TOTAL CORRECT: (8 possible}
Branching Rules
3-8 correct—Developed; Go to Task 10, page 61-
0-2 correct—Still Developing: Go to Screening 3, page 48.
Remember, pronounce letter sounds, not letter names, j and say the word silently to yourself first. j
1. /ml /a/ /ss/ |
2. Ibl loot Iml !
3. I\NI lal Isl Ipl |
4. Is/ IV Ixl /eel IXJ \
5. /ph/ lol Inel \
6. Ibl HI /u/ M ft/ !
mass
boom
wasp
street
phone !
blunt
TOTAL CORRECT: (6 possible)
Branching Rules
5-6 correct—Developed: Go to Task 10, page 61.
0-4 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 1, page 52.
• End o f BOY Sc reen ing Sec t ion • •wry o* fr>.i? Sysrem and Texa1. Edwt<Jtt©n Ayemy
121
Start of End-of-Year (EOY) Screening Section
Screening 4 Word Reading
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
8.
around
swing !
test
been
lion
young ]
matter j
people j
TOTAL CORRECT: (8 possible)
Branching Rules
5-8 correct—Developed: Go to Task 10, page 61.
0-4 correct—Still Developing: Go to Screening 5, page 50.
Screening 5 Phonemic Awareness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Remember, pronounce letter sounds, not letter names, and say the word silently to yourself first.
/s/ l\l rV M lerl
Iml let / l l / low/
HI l\l lew/ :
/a/ lb/ /ou/ In/ Idl
/sh/ /ou/ / I / 161 /er/ ;
M lot Ihl lot Idl lyl \
silver
mellow |
f lew
abound j
shoulder
nobody I
TOTAL CORRECT: 16 possible)
Branching Rules
5-6 correct—Developed: Go to Task 10, page 61.
0-4 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 1, page 52.
End of EOY Screening Section •
122
Inventory Section (BOY, MOY and EOY)
For MOY and EOY: If a student scored SD on a task when you administered the TPRl earlier in the year, re-administer every item within the task during the next administration.
Phonemic Awareness
ttwwfttt? Weird Nits "Amm ' " MOV S«r»«»1>
cov
Remember, pronounce letter sounds, not letter names. \ \ and say the word silently to yourself first. 1
1. M /ery/
2. /sh/ /are/
3. / t h / / ing/
4. /br/ /anch/
5. Id Irl /awl/
very
share
th ing
! branch
crawl
TOTAL CORRECT; {5 possible)
Branching Rules
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 2, page 53.
0-3 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 5, page 56.
• Check box if Task is Developed. This Task no longer needs to be administered
Wmdtafll
Phonemic Awareness
jWufif- f^jjHPpf
Remember pronounce letter 50 and say the word silently
1. / I / /a/ /mb/
2. /ch/ /'i/ In!
3. Ibl /a/ Inl 161
4. Id l\l lol /ck7
5. Is/ 1X1 Irl lol /ng/
./nds.. nor /etter names, to yourself first. \
lamb ; j |
u- [ '• i chin j ;
band j j
clock |
strong i ! 1
TOTAL CORRECT: (5 possible)
Branching Rules
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 3, page 54.
0-3 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 5, page 56,
• Check box if Task is Developed. This Task no longer needs to be administered.
Phonemic Awareness Branching Rules
Dating ImtialfourKis Answer
Remember pronounce letter sounds and sa\ the word silentlv to yc
1. hair
2. name
3. sold
4. f l ight
5, crest
w i thou t the
w i thou t the
w i thou t the
w i thou t the
w i thou t the
/h /
Inl
N
m Id
I 1 not letter names, \ \ urself first ] 1
! . ! ! i air ; i !
! aim ; |
i old ' \
l ight ; ;
rest
TOTAL CORRECT: (5 possible)
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 4, page 55.
0-3 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 5, page 56.
• Check box if Task is Developed This Task no longer needs to be administered.
md T y x ^ Educa!'
123
Phonemic Awareness Branching Rules
Dtletfng RnsJ Sounds Answw BOY
CM) MOV . • * f . ~
Scowfofl Stout KM)
Remember, pronounce letter sounds, and say the word silently to yo
1. rode w i thou t the
2. for t w i thou t the
3. bloom wi thou t the
4. grain w i thou t the
5. stayed w i thou t the
161
IV
An/
M
/ d /
not letter names, j urself first. 1
row j !
i for ;
blue ; i j
g^y ! j !
stay j 1 j
TOTAL CORRECT: IS possible)
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 5, page 56,
0-3 correct—Stili Developing: Go to Task 5, page 56.
• Check box if Task is Developed. This Task no longer needs to be administered,
Graphophonemic Knowledge
Initial Consonant Substitution Answw $ei . '»•»." • '-stiff Swwto.fl Swm%n *snhl>
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
-°g
—°g
og
—09
....og
! f
fa : I ! h I I i
i ! I I : |
TOTAL CORRECT: (5 possible)
Branching Rules
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 6, page 57.
0-3 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 10, page 61.
• Check box if Task is Developed. This Task no longer needs to be administered
Graphophonemic Knowledge
Pinal Consonant Substitution
1. sa__
2. s a _
3. sa....
4. s a _
5. fa ._
Answer
t
! d
! g
i p
t
TOTAL CORRECT: (5 possible)
BOY Stt» (8,1)
MOV Score to, t)
Branching Rules
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 7, page 58.
0-3 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 10, page 61.
• Check box if Task is Developed. This Task no longer needs to be administered.
O JOOo Trio Univi 1 To »,is FdiKjtson Ago re
124
Graphophonemic Knowledge
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
b 9
b_g
b _ g
b_g
P._t
a
e
i
u
i o
'
i ' ;
I ; !
TOTAL CORRECT: (5 possible)
Branching Rules
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 8, page 59.
0-3 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 10, page 61.
• Check box if Task is Developed. This Task no longer needs to be administered.
Graphophonemic Knowledge
•Cry MOV "tfY initial Bttmttr« Substitution Answer s ^ . n *«£$,„ j ^ i )
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
__am
am
.__op
—Op
_ °P
cl
I gr i < i dr j j j
' f l
\ st
TOTAL CORRECT: (5 possible)
Branching Rules
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 9. page 60
0-3 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 10, page 61.
• Check box if Task is Developed This Task no longer needs to be administered.
Blends In ftfMri Position
Graphophonemic Knowledge
Answer swett,!) sewiflM} Sc*re<o.t}
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
be
g a _
ca
du._
f a _
st !
, SP i
j st | i ;
! sk I \ ! st • ; I
TOTAL CORRECT: (5 possible)
Branching Rules
4-5 correct—Developed: Go to Task 10, page 61.
0-3 correct—Still Developing: Go to Task 10, page 61.
• Check box if Task is Developed. This Task no longer needs to be administered.
O 2006 The University of Texas System oivd Tends Education AyetKy
125
• Word List fo r Story P lacement ! Use at each administration time point to determine which story the student should read.
Word List for Story Placement Criteria for Story Placement
; "*«KP«r Star. (0,ir Seo* %,i)
1, bump
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
family
push
front
hurry
turned
lesson
early
earn
voice
sugar
bodies
hours
business
island
TOTAL CORRECT: (IS possible)
;
!
;
i
wte «t Road Cort
0-3
4-6
7
8
9-15
iMfty
Story 1, page 62.
Story 2, page 64.
Story 3, page 66.
Story 4, page 68.
Story 5, page 70.
Placing Students Into the Same Story If a student reads a story more than once, use a different color pen/pencil to mark errors and calculate the score. Another option is to photocopy a clean page and staple it to the booklet.
Moving Students Back a Story If students are unable to read the story in which they are placed, have them read the previous story. If students are unable to read Story 1, read Story 3 or 4 from kindergarten EOY to obtain a Listening Comprehension score.
These results do not need to be recorded on the Student Inventory Summary She? Scores ate used only for appropriate placement in the story.
126
Task 11 Story 1 - The Sun
If a student reads the same story more than once, please use a different color ink to mark errors.
"Look at the big, yel low sun," said Sis. ~'-'.'''M
"I like to play in the sun, I like to run in the sun," "No," said Jan, "I do not like to play in the sun. I do not like to
run in the sun. The sun is too hot ." "But, Jan," said Sis, "we have fun in the sun. We go to the pond in the sun.
We get soaked in the sun." "I like to go to the pond, I like to get wet. I like to play in the sun, t oo , " said Jan.
Accuracy Level
Pni
Inst
ind
m m m m n H r Of WTQfA I I I tftft 9 I K
• O Y M O T M Y
10 or more errors *
6-9 errors • :
0-5 errors ; I
Fluency Rate
aov
MOV
EOYj
MOV
EOV
94
94
94
The reading rate goal is 60 S-WCPM by the end of grade
Administer at! of the Reading Comprehension questions below. For directions, go to the TPRI Teacher's Guide, page 63.
Task 11
Story 1 - The Sun
Reading Comprehension
Tell me two things that Sis likes to do in the sun. Answer; Play in tho sun; run in the sun; have fun in the sun; go to the pond and get wet in the sun.
2 What do the children do at the pond? Answer: Get wet.
3. In this story, who does not like the sun? Answer: Jan.
A. Where do the children in the story like to play? Answer. Outside in the sun; in the pond.
5. Why does Jan change her mind about liking the sun? Answer: She likes to go to the pond and get wet.
6. Why doesn't Jan like the sun? Answer: It is too hot.
7. What does soaked mean in the sentence, "We get soaked in the sun"? soaked Answer: To get completely wet. Score 0: A little wet; damp.
8. What does pond mean in the sentence, "We go to the pond in the sun"? pond Answer: A small lake Score 0: A fountain; pool; ocean.
K
BOY Total Exp
BOY Total Imp
BOY Total Vocab
MOY Total Exp
MOY Total Imp
MOY Total Vocab
.u
EOY Total Exp
EOY Total Imp
EOY Total Vocab
TOTAL CORRECT: (8 possible)
BOY MOY EOY
End of Assessment
Please record results on Student Inventory Summary Sheet.
C ?CX)& 'he UnivprstTy rtf Tcx-v; Syi tpm and "ex.Vi Education A g e . x y
127
Story 2 - At the Pond
If a student reads the same story more than once, please use a different color ink to mark errors.
Tom and Sid like the pond - *,TZ, *,."» ' „ ' " " ' ' ~ *,'.
Dad likes the pond, too. Tom fed the yellow duck Sid fed a brown fish. Dad said, "Look at the blue bird."
"I see a green frog," said Torn. "Can we jump in the pond?" asked Tom and Sid. "No," said dad, "Mom said we
cannot get wet." "But, dad, it is hot," said Tom and Sid. "It is hot," said dad. In went dad. In went Tom and Sid.
Accuracy Level
of trrerafit t h * ntr& MVMOVIOV mM9 Fluency Rate
*«*<£83S) Fro
but
Ind
9 or more errors
0-4 errors
MOV
BOY
WOT
to*
76 1X60 =
76 I 1x60 =
76 1x60 =
The reading rate goal is 60 S-WCPM by the end of grade '
Administer all of the Reading Comprehension questions below. For directions, go to the TPRI Teacher's Guide, page 65.
Reading Comprehension
Stotyi-Atthttood ;-*^?*%F |
1. What does Tom see? A green frog,
2. What did Tom and Sid ask dad? Answer: If they could jump into the pond
3. When the boys first asked to jump into the pond, dad said no. Why did he say no? Answer: Mom said the boys could not get wet.
4. Where does the story take place? Answer: At a pond.
5. What changed dad's mind about letting the boys jump in the pond? Answer: He agreed it was hot.
6. How do you think mom will feel when she sees that dad, Tom and Sid are wet? Answer: Upset; mad.
7, What does fed mean in the sentence, "Tom fed the yellow duck"? fed Answer: Gave food-Score 0: To eat.
8. What does pond mean in the sentence, "Can we jump in the pond"? pond Answer: A small lake. Score 0: A fountain, pool; ocean.
BOV Total Exp
BOY Total Imp
BOY Total Vixab
cov CM)
MOY Total Exp
MOY Total Imp
MOY Total Vocab
EOY Total Exp
EOY Total Imp
EOY Total Vocab
hlffi-End of Assessment
Please record results on Student Inventory Summary Sheet.
£J 2006 The University of Texab System and Texas Education Ago-icy
TOTAL CORRECT: (8 possible)
BOY MOY
128
Story 3 - Carla Makes Tacos
If a student reads the same story more than once, please use a different color ink to mark errors.
Carla's family had tacos for lunch. • -, . , " -,- i , _ ,
Carta helped. She put the salt on the tacos. She put the hot pepper on the tacos. Her family was happy to have
tacos. They sat down for lunch, "Please pass the tacos," said papa. "Oh, n o l " said papa. "They are too ho t ! "
"Oh, no! Pass the milk, f as t i " said litt le brother. Morn looked at Carla, "You put too much hot pepper on the
tacos!" Carla said, "The hot pepper is red. The salt is whi te . There was a mix-up." Carla fel t very sad. Papa said,
"Oh, wel l , that's OK. Everyone get in the van, Taco Bell, here we come!"
Accuracy Level
•ov
Fluency Rate
MM
liwt
tad
1 ! 1 11 or more errors i ; j
5-10 errors | I i
0-4 errors
MOV
toy
* * - jJ5£3o x60 =
X60 :
ix60=]
The reading rate goa! is 60 S-WCPM by the end of grade 1.
Administer all of the Reading Comprehension questions below. For directions, go to the TPRI Teacher's Guide, page 67.
Reading Comprehension
Story $ - Carta Malm Ham ••anf W6Y (0,1)
When does Carla's family eat tacos? Answer: At iunch.
2. Why were the tacos too hot? Answer: Carla put too much hot pepper on the tacos.
5. Where did the family end up going that day? Answer: Taco Bell,
4. Who tasted the tacos first? Answer: Papa.
5. Why did little brother ask for the milk? Answer: His mouth (tongue) was burning.
6. Why did Carla feel sad? Answer: She put too much pepper on the tacos.
7, What does pass mean in the sentence, "Pass the milk, fast"? pass Answer: To hand from one person to another. Score 0; To throw; toss.
8. What does mix-up mean in the sentence, "There was a mix-up"? mix-up Answer: Mistake. Score 0: To stir.
BOY Total Exp
BOY Total Imp
BOY Total Vocab
MOY Total Exp
MOY Total Imp
MOY Total Vocab
EOY Total Exp
EOY Total Imp
EOY Total Vocab
End of Assessment
Please record results on Student Inventory Summary Sheet,
« ^006 The Unwetvity of Tea-a* f.yir^srt . ;nd T A * 3 > buu<3-,ior A t j e w y
TOTAL CORRECT: (8 possible)
SOY MOV EOY
Story 4 - Will and the Skunks
If a student reads the same story more than once, please use a different color ink to mark errors.
Will likes to go on the bus to school because he gets to see his friends.:--: • ^..'^•".-• -"*-.;: < He always sits with his very best friend. Each morning, he runs to the bus stop so that he will not miss the bus. One very odd day, Will ran to the bus stop, as he did every day. When he got there, he stopped. "What is this?" At the bus stop sat a skunk. The skunk asked, "Is this the bus stop for school?" Will stopped and rubbed his eyes, "Is this a talking skunk?" he asked. "How can a skunk talk at a bus stop?" When the bus came, the doors opened and the skunk hopped on the bus. Will got on, too. "Oh, no! This cannot be," Will said, as he rubbed his eyes again. The bus was full of skunks.
Accuracy Level Fluency Rate
Pro
fvwt
M
P «k»Y»r
15 or more errors . ,
i ! ;
8-14 errors { 1 ; 0 7 errors
TOY
MOV
WY
i e .
», The reading rate goal is 60 S-WCPM by the end of grade 1.
Administer all of the Reading Comprehension questions below. For directions, go to the TPRI Teacher's Guide, page 69.
Reading Comprehension
Stay 4 - wm*ntfth9 #wWfcr wot «0¥ SOY
i . Why does Will like to ride the school bus? Answer: So he can see his friends,
2 What did the skunk ask Will? Answer: If this was the bus stop for school.
3. What did Wit! see when he got on the bus? Answer: it was filled with skunks.
Why was it an odd day? Answer: It was odd to see a skunk at the bus stop
Why did Will rub his eyes? Answer; He could not believe what he was seeing were working correctly.
to make sure they
6. Who normally rides the bus to school? Answer: People; kids, children.
7. What does 00*0' mean in the sentence, "One very odd day, Will ran to the bus stop, as he did every day"? odd Answer; Strange; unusual; not normal. Score 0; Special; good, an odd number.
What does miss mean in the sentence, "Each morning, he runs to the bus stop so that he wil l not miss the bus"? miss Answer: Not catch; not ride Score 0: To feel sad.
End of Assessment
Please record results on Student inventory Summary Sheet.
TOTAL CORRECT: (B possible)
BOY Total Exp
BOY Total Imp
BOY Total Vocab
nr BOY
MOY Total Exp
MOY Total Imp
MOY Total Vocab
EOY Total Exp
EOY Total Imp
EOY Total Vocab
MOY •
•& J0Q£ The Uni
130
Story 5 - Feeling Lazy
If a student reads the same story mare than once, please use a different color ink to mark errors.
It was a very hot, sunny summer day, , "
Jon and Ming had been watching TV a!! morning. Mom told them to turn off the TV. "Go play outside," she
said. "Growing boys need to run and play in the sunshine." Jon and Ming felt lazy. They just wanted to sit
around all day, "You cannot sit around all day. Out you go! " said mom. The boys picked up their basketball
and went outside. They began dribbling the ball and shooting baskets. The boys across the street saw them
playing basketball. "Can we play, too?" they asked. "Yes," said Jon and Ming. Mom went outside with glasses
of punch and a big grin. "Playing outside with friends is the best way to spend a summer day," said mom. The
boys agreed with mom. It was more fun to play than to be lazy all day.
Accuracy Level Fluency Rate
144 -
144 -
144 • j
=
= =
A.
T
|*
x60 =
x60 = |
x60 = j
The reading rate goal is 60 S WCPM by the end of grade 1.
Administer ail of the Reading Comprehension questions below. For directions, go to the TPRI Teacher's Guide, page 71.
Reading Comprehension
1. What are the names of the two boys in the story? Answer: Jon and Ming.
2. What had Jon and Ming been doing all morning? Answer: Watching "IV
3. What did mom tell the boys to do? Answer: To turn off the TV and go outside and play.
4. Why did mom want the boys outside? Answer: !t is not good for growing boyi to sit around and watch TV all day; it is more enjoyable to be outside playing than inside watching TV.
Why did mom have a big grin on her face when she brought the boys punch? Answer: She was pleased the boys were playing outside.
If mom did not ask the boys to go play outside, how would they have spent the rest of the day? Answer, Watching TV.
7. What does lazy mean rn the sentence, "ion and Ming felt lazy"? lazy Answer; inactive; not wanting to do much Score 0: Bored; sleepy.
S. What does grin mean in the sentence, "Mom went outside with glasses of punch and a big grin"? grin Answer: A smile. Score 0: To laugh.
^J
81
BOY Total Exp
BOY Total Imp
BOY Total Votab
MOY Total Exp
MOY Total Imp
MOY Total Vocab
EOY Total Exp
EOY Total tmp
EOY Total
End of Assessment
Please record results on Student Inventory Summary Sheet.
TOTAL CORRECT: (8 possible)
Appendix B
Class Summary Sheet
132
*.>n?»fiy uoti^J'H'j ^ ^ i t">p 'n*Mi ^PK^I K' AitMSftjun "i)l 900? ©
# 5 -^ < ****
•
I I I
kuotfMnC) Xj«)nq»OA A
§§5«858SW5^ : . ^^» .
iuoii««nO )p||dxa J
lpii^r« l;?t I » A B I Xssjnwv -^ e l
H^M^f fefl >pu*iaiBu.j £§
Bfefe^:^ | H f|>MOA »!PPIW 0 £
BfeW*#.l*I; | | M c*u«uosu<o |ei;iu| & J
HSfSS"?r- *̂ " E M tpunos |»|l!U| B in
B^w^-" M M sued pjou 11 in
^g»^«|(|»l«$%y '
Tea
cher
:
Dat
e:
Cam
pus:
E9
!J
![Reading / Fluency. Students read grade-level text with fluency and comprehension. [4.1] October 2014Fourth Grade ELAR](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/56649e455503460f94b3aa1b/reading-fluency-students-read-grade-level-text-with-fluency-and-comprehension.jpg)
