Carol Champommier



Teaching Reading Fluency in the Classroom

Carol Champommier

EED 616 Micro Computing Language Arts

California State University Northridge

Introduction

Fluency in reading is an important skill that all readers need to develop. Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler stated “Students with learning or reading disabilities demonstrate difficulties in the area of fluency” (p.386). Although there seems to be an increased interest in developing reading comprehension, intervention strategies for improving reading fluency appear to be lacking in some reading programs. As a teacher of reading, I am interested in finding the most beneficial strategies to improve the reading fluency of the most struggling readers in my first grade class. Without early intervention, children who experience-reading problems in the first and second grades will most likely continue to have reading problems over time (Speece, Mills, Ritchey, and Hillman, 2003). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the most beneficial intervention strategies for those readers who continue to struggle with fluency.

Reading fluency is beginning to be discussed in relation to reading success and effective instruction in reading since the publication of the National Reading Panel report (2000) and other recent scholarly reviews of scientific research (Chard, Vaughn, &Tyler, 2002). However, reading instruction and teacher training programs and materials rarely address the issue of reading fluency (Rasinski & Zutell, 1996 as stated in Rasinski, 2004).

Reading fluency is defined as the speed, accuracy and expression (Kamhi, 2003) at which a person reads. In order for readers to be successful, they must process and comprehend the text. Rasinski (2004) states that if a reader can gain control over the surface level reading, then they can gain a deeper understanding of the meaning embedded in the text. The goal would be to not only increase reading fluency but also to increase the readers’ level of comprehension.

There are three parts to assessing reading fluency. The first part is determining the proficiency of decoding connected text. When teachers assess reading fluency, they calculate the number of words a reader can accurately decode on grade-level material. An adequate level of accuracy is about 90-95 percent.

Automaticity in decoding is assessed by determining the students’ reading rate. Reading rates increase as students’ progress through school. The same method is used in the Open Court Reading program. Automaticity is determined by having a student read orally for one minute from a grade-level passage. The numbers of words read correctly are calculated and the number of incorrectly read words is deducted from this total. Rasinski (2004) states that students’ scores are compared to oral fluency norms for each grade level. Students are expected to read at the 50th percentile. If a student falls below the target rate by 20 or 30 percent, they will most likely need extra instruction.

The third type of fluency to assess is prosodic reading. The student is assessed on the quality of the reading by the use of a rubric. (Rasinski, 2004) states that volume, phrasing, pace, and smoothness are the elements of expression. These elements are used to score the student’s prosodic reading level.

One-minute oral readings are designed to give teachers a quick sense of where the student is in their reading fluency. If a student is having difficulties in prosodic reading, decoding accuracy or automaticity, hopefully, the deficiencies will become evident to the teacher during these short fluency reads.

Reading instruction, therefore, depends on which area the students need the most help. If accuracy is the issue, the problem may be in decoding words. Wolf & Katzir-Cohen (2001) found that improvements in reading fluency and automaticity are more difficult to obtain than improvements in decoding and word-reading accuracy. This means that more research is needed to learn about the development of the components of reading and how the skills can mediate the reading rate of a reader.

Additional instruction in phonics and decoding would be the most helpful in this case.

The fluency strategies that most of the research focuses on are repeated reading, teacher modeled reading, peer-mediated reading instruction, computer-guided practice, and previewing. In the case of automaticity and prosodic reading, Kuhn & Stahl, 2000 as stated in Rasinski, 2004 state that repeated readings and modeled readings (assisted) are the most beneficial methods of increasing fluency. Computer-guided practice, previewing, and peer-mediated instruction can help with the decoding of text, which can increase fluency levels for some struggling readers.

Repeated reading

Repeated reading is an intervention strategy where students read the same text repeatedly to gain fluency. Fuchs, et al. (2001) believes that fluency can be developed the best through practice and repetition. In repeated reading, a student reads short passages that contain words that they can generally recognize. Mastropieri, Leinart, & Scruggs (1999) state that the student must read the passage repeatedly to reach a predetermined level of fluency. By reading the same passage, students can improve the decoding of high frequency words that appear in the text repeatedly.

Students may also experience a gain in self-confidence after repeated reading because they are able to read the passage quicker and with fewer errors. This may also allow the student the ability to increase in comprehension. The National Reading Panel (2000) found that repeated reading could improve decoding, prosodic reading, reading rate, and comprehension. Richards (2000) states that students can better understand the phrasing of a text after repeated readings. This may lead to better comprehension. Reader’s theatre is one venue, which supports repeated reading. Worthy & Prater (2002) state that modeling, instruction, and feedbacks are natural components for rehearsals of reader’s theatre that provides meaningful ways to engage in repeated readings of text.

Teacher Modeled Reading

Teachers can model fluent reading of a text by reading aloud. Students can follow along silently with the teacher. Then the student can have an opportunity to read together with the teacher or a partner who is at a similar reading level. Rasinski (2004) states that students need to hear how a fluent reader sounds. By listening to a fluent reader, the student can learn how to interpret text with their voices.

Teacher modeled reading can increase a reader’s fluency. Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler (2002) state that teachers need to consider, before engaging in repeated reading, the best method of modeling fluent reading. The model should be an adult. If an adult is not available, a computer-assisted program can be a good replacement.

Peer Assisted Reading Instruction

Mathes, et al. (2003) researched teacher-directed versus peer-assisted instruction to improve fluency. Mathes, et al. (2003) found that a benefit of peer assisted instruction is that individual students can gain in academic achievement without adding any burden on the teacher. A form of peer assisted instruction is PALS, which means Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies. In the study of Mathes, et al. (2003), PALS was designed to meet the needs of first grade beginning readers. 7 teachers conducted first grade PALS, 7 teachers conducted small groups, and 8 teachers were the contrast group. Oral fluency readings and phonemic segmentation measures were gathered every two weeks. As a result, Mathes, et al. (2003) found that both peer-assisted instruction and small group teacher-directed instruction enhanced reading performance more than differentiated instruction. Mathes, et al. (2003) also found that teacher-directed instruction in a small group setting presented the material for reading growth better than peer-assisted instruction.

Computer-guided practice

Computer-assisted instruction is sometimes used to promote fluency. The programs are designed to promote reading speed or emphasize the recognition of words with different vowel combinations. Mastropieri, Leinart, & Scruggs (1999) compared the effects of computer-based guided reading with speech feedback and reading-while-listening conditions. They reported significant increases in fluency rates. Therefore, computer-guided fluency practice can be a good substitute when a teacher is not available to model fluency for the student.

Previewing

The method of previewing to increase fluency involves the pre-exposure to text material before official reading. Students can preview silently, by listening to the teacher read the text, or by previewing aloud. Previewing is the most similar to repeated reading.

Conclusion

Current research indicates that repeated reading may be the best method for increasing oral fluency, although many other strategies mentioned in this paper are also effective. Chard, Vaughn, and Tyler (2002) found in the synthesis of 24 published and unpublished studies that the most effective methods for building fluency are using an explicit model of fluent reading, repeated readings with corrective feedback, and increasing text difficulty by using an established performance criteria. The National Reading Report (2000) stated that repeated reading could lead to improvements in decoding, reading rate, and prosodic reading.

The road to fluency continues to be long and difficult for many students, especially those with learning disabilities. While many studies have been conducted on intervention strategies for increasing fluency, there are still many unresolved questions. Researchers need to continue studying reading fluency and its affects on reading comprehension in order to leave no child behind in reading fluency and comprehension.

References

Chard, D., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B.(2002). A synthesis of research on

Effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35(5), 386-407. Retrieved on April 18, 2004, from Academic Search Elite.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Yen, L., McMaster, K., Svenson, E., Yang, N., Young, C., et al. (2001). Developing first-grade reading fluency through peer mediation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34 (2), 90-94.

Kame’enui, E. & Simmons,D. (2001). Introduction to this special issue: The DNA of reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 203-211.

Mastropieri, M., Leinart, A. & Scruggs,T. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34 (5), 278-286.

Mathes,P., Torgesen, J., Clancy-Menchetti, J., Santi, K., Nicholas, K., Robinson, C. & Grek, M. (2003). A comparison of teacher-directed versus peer assisted instruction to struggling first grade readers. Elementary School journal, 103 (5), 459-480. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite on April 18, 2004.

National Institute of Child Health and 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. Retrieved May 3, 2004 from .

Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61 (6), 46-52.

Richards, M. (2000) Be a good detective; Solve the case of oral reading fluency. Reading Teacher 53 (7), 534-540..

Speece, D., Mills, C., Ritchey, K. & Hillman, E. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education 36 (4), 223-234.

Wolf, M. & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 211-240. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite on April 21, 2004.

Worthy, J. & Prater, K. (2002). ‘I thought about it all night’: Readers theatre for reading fluency and motivation. Reading Teacher, 56 (3), 294-298.

Annotated Bibliography

Chard, D., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on

Effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35 (5), 386-407. Retrieved on April 18, 2004, from Academic Search Elite. Students with learning disabilities often struggle with reading fluency. Intervention strategies for these readers are not always clearly understood. This study synthesizes the research of these strategies for LD students. The study examines 24 published and unpublished studies. The finding is that an explicit model of fluent reading, repeated reading with corrective feedback, and established performance criteria for the increase of text difficulty were the most effective strategies.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Yen, L., McMaster, K., Svenson, E., Yang, N., Young, C., et al. (2001). Developing first-grade reading fluency through peer mediation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34 (2) 90-94. Examines first grade children’s reading fluency in the United States with and without disabilities. Discusses peer-assisted learning strategies and reading comprehension indicators.

Kame’enui, E. & Simmons, D.(2001). Introduction to this special issue: The DNA of reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 203-211. Examines reading fluency by looking at the historical, theoretical and empirical data. Discusses the validity and viability of oral reading fluency.

Mastropieri, M., Leinart, A. & Scruggs, T. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in School & Clinic, 34 (5), 278-286. Evaluates and provides recommendations for intervention to increase reading fluency. Strategies examined include computer-guided practice, previewing, peer-mediated instruction, and repeated reading.

Mathes, P., Torgesen, J., Clancy-Menchetti, J., Santi, K., Nicholas, K., Robinson, C. & Grek, M. (2003). A comparison of teacher-directed versus peer assisted instruction to struggling first grade readers. Elementary School journal, 103 (5), 459-480. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite on April 18, 2004. The study was conducted to find solutions on how to increase reading growth for struggling readers. Two methods, peer-assisted instruction and small group teacher-directed instruction were examined. There were 22 general education teachers and 89 first grade students involved in the study. The results were that both strategies were effective, however, small group teacher directed instruction was more powerful.

National Institute of Child Health and 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. Retrieved May 3, 2004 from . The report is a result of a request in 1997 by Congress to the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). A national panel was developed and convened to assess the effectiveness of several methods to teaching reading. The report reflects the findings of the National Reading Panel.

Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46-52. Reading

fluency is important to the success of student readers. The three dimensions of reading fluency are discussed. They are word decoding, automatic processing and prosodic reading. The assessment practices and instruction strategies are examined.

Richards, M. (2000) Be a good detective; Solve the case of oral reading fluency. Reading Teacher 53 (7), 534-540. Discusses the importance of oral reading fluency in the performance and instruction of reading. Examines the difference of fluency between silent reading and oral reading. Determines some methods for gaining fluency and the integration of fluency and comprehension in the curriculum.

Speece, D., Mills, C., Ritchey, K. & Hillman, E. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education 36 (4), 223-234. The longitudinal study examines letter-name fluency and nonsense word fluency in 38 kindergarten students. They were evaluated on multiple regression and classification analysis as well as concurrent and predictive criterion-related validity coefficients. The results supported both measures of fluency, however, non-sense word fluency was stronger.

Wolf, M. & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 211-240. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite on April 21, 2004. Historical approaches to fluency, current interventions, and overviews of an experimental program are examined. Further exploration is needed to increase understanding of reading development and dyslexia subtypes.

Worthy, J. & Prater, K. (2002). ‘I thought about it all night’: Readers theatre for reading fluency and motivation. Reading Teacher, 56(3), 294-298. Investigates the theory and research behind the reader’s theatre strategy for teaching reading. Discusses the benefits and the methods used for choosing text for reader’s theatre.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download