Colleague Letter

alondclayola

article_why_fluency_shd_be_hot__rt_may_2012.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Colleague Letter

516

T H E I N S I D E T R A C K

W H Y R E A DI NG F LU E NC Y SHOU LD BE HO T!

Timothy V. Rasinski

I n 2009, an annual survey of experts (Cassidy

& Cassidy, 2010) in reading determined that

reading fluency was no longer a hot topic

for reading. Moreover, those same experts

determined that fluency should also not be

considered a hot topic. The 2010 survey reports the

same results (Cassidy, Ortlieb, & Shettel, 2011). How

could this be?

The National Reading Panel’s (NRP; 2000) survey

of research in reading determined that reading

fluency was, indeed, one of the pillars of effective

reading instruction. Subsequent summaries of

reading research have also determined that there is a

solid body of research that supports reading fluency

instruction (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Kuhn &

Stahl, 2003; Rasinski, 2010; Rasinski & Hoffman,

2003; Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & Linan-Thompson,

2011). In this article, I explore why fluency has

become such a pariah in the reading field, and I

also discuss why it should be a central element to

any effective fluency curriculum and how this can

happen.

Why Fluency Is Not Hot There are several reasons why fluency has lost its

allure among reading educators and experts. The

first problem lies in the way that fluency is generally

measured. Reading rate (the number of words a reader

can read on grade level text in a minute) has come to

be the quintessential measure of reading fluency. This

comes from studies that have shown high correlations

between reading rate and reading comprehension.

This correlational research has evolved into a

definition of reading fluency as reading fast. As a

result, reading fluency instruction has become in

many classrooms a quest for speed. Students are

provided with instruction that emphasizes increasing

reading rate.

If fluency is nothing more than reading fast, then

fluency instruction should be considered cold. In its

Timothy V. Rasinski is a professor of literacy education at Kent State University, Ohio, USA; e-mail [email protected].

trtr_1077.indd 516trtr_1077.indd 516 4/25/2012 11:35:52 AM4/25/2012 11:35:52 AM

W H Y R E A D I N G F L U E N C Y S H O U L D B E H O T !

www.reading.org R T

517

fullest and most authentic sense, fluency

is reading with and for meaning, and

any instruction that focuses primarily on

speed with minimal regard for meaning

is wrong.

A second reason for fluency’s

demotion is that it is associated

primarily with oral reading (NRP,

2000), and because most of the reading

that is done beyond the primary grades

is silent reading, then oral reading

fluency instruction must have little

value. Why teach oral reading fluency

if students will rarely employ it beyond

grades 2 or 3? Indeed, Chall’s (1996)

model of reading development places

fluency as a competency to be mastered

in the early stages of reading. Why

bother, then, with fluency beyond

grades 2 or 3?

Third, as one of the five pillars of

effective reading instruction (NRP,

2000), fluency is often taught as a

separate area of the reading curriculum,

distinct and apart from authentic

reading students do during guided

reading or reading workshop—a time

when the teacher’s stopwatch comes

out and students read orally for speed.

In many classrooms today, students

are being asked to reread a reading

passage from the core reading series

or a fluency program four, five, even

six times until they can read it at a

speed deemed appropriate for their

grade level. Reading for meaning

and enjoyment is not part of fluency

instruction. Comprehension and reading

for pleasure are considered different

parts of the reading curriculum—apart

from fluency. Fluency is not viewed as

integral to real reading.

Why Fluency Should Be Hot I believe that fluency should be a hot

topic for teachers and scholars and

reading. My conception of fluency puts

it at the center of authentic reading

instruction in which the aim of students’

reading is comprehension (Rasinski,

2006). With the simple model of reading

I propose next, I hope to address the

preceding concerns about fluency

and demonstrate how it is a critical

component for effective instruction.

Pikulski and Chard (2005)

described fluency as a bridge from

word recognition accuracy to text

comprehension (see Figure). I think

they are right on with this metaphor.

Fluency has two essential components:

automaticity and prosody. Automaticity

refers to the ability to recognize words

automatically or effortlessly (LaBerge &

Samuels, 1974). Prosody completes the

bridge by connecting to comprehension.

Automaticity—The Link to Word Recognition It is not enough for readers to read

the words in text accurately—they

need to read the words automatically.

LaBerge and Samuels (1974) posited

that all readers have a limited amount

of attention, or what I have come to

call cognitive energy. If they have to use too much of that cognitive energy

to decode the words in text, they have

little remaining for the more important

task in reading—comprehension. These

students are marked by their slow,

laborious, and staccato reading of texts.

Our goal should be for readers to

read the words in texts accurately and

automatically. When the words in text are identified automatically, readers can

employ most of their limited cognitive

energy to that all-important task in

reading—text comprehension. For

many readers, comprehension while

reading suffers not because the readers

have insufficient cognitive resources to

make meaning out of the text read, but

because they depleted those resources

by having to employ them in word

recognition. These are the same readers

who would easily understand a text if

it were read to them—when someone

else takes on the task of decoding the

words, they can employ their cognitive

resources to making meaning.

Readers develop their word

recognition automaticity in the same

way that other automatic processes in

life are developed—through wide and

deep practice. Wide reading refers to the common classroom practice of reading

a text once followed by discussion,

response, and instruction aimed at

developing some specific reading

“Studies...have shown high correlations

between reading rate and comprehension.... As a

result, reading fluency instruction has become in

many classrooms a quest for speed.”

Figure A Critical Bridge in Reading

Fluency: Word Recognition Automaticity Comprehension

Prosody

trtr_1077.indd 517trtr_1077.indd 517 4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM

W H Y R E A D I N G F L U E N C Y S H O U L D B E H O T !

518

The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 8 May 2012R T

strategies and skills. The routine then

begins anew with a different text. A

general purpose of wide reading is

to increase the volume of reading by

having students read one new text after

another. This is a type of reading done

by most adults, and it is clearly a key

component of any effective reading

program.

Deep reading is more commonly

referred to as repeated reading

(Samuels, 1979). Deep reading occurs

when a student is asked to read a single

text repeatedly until a level of fluency

is achieved. Think of those struggling

students who have not yet achieved

automaticity in their word recognition.

They read the passage for the first time

(and only time, as in wide reading),

and they don’t read it very well—they

know it and you know it. The slow,

halting reading that characterizes less

than automatic word recognition will

have a detrimental effect on the reader’s

comprehension. I think that rather than

moving on to the next passage after

some discussion and instruction, as is

done in wide reading, the teacher needs

to have the student read the passage

more than once until some degree

of automaticity is achieved with that

passage.

When readers read a text more than

once, it is not unusual that they would

demonstrate improvement with every

successive reading on

that text practiced.

That’s to be

expected: Repeated

practice improves

the performance of

the actual activity

practiced. The real

value of deep or

repeated reading

is shown when

students move on

to a new and not

previously read passage. What students

learn from the repeated reading of one

passage partially transfers to the new

passage. Several reviews of research

on fluency have shown that word

recognition accuracy, automaticity,

comprehension, and attitude toward

reading have been shown to improve

with repeated readings (Dowhower,

1994; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Rasinski

et al., 2011). Wide reading and deep

reading are foundational to any effective

fluency program or intervention.

The problem with repeated readings

becomes evident when readers intuit

a purpose for the deep reading that

focuses primarily on reading speed and

away from meaning. Because fluency

(automaticity) has come to be measured

by a reader’s speed of reading, for

many students (and teachers), the goal

of repeated readings has evolved into

increasing one’s reading speed (e.g.,

students are required to read passages

from their reading book multiple times

until they achieve a predetermined

reading rate). When students engage in

this form of repeated reading and their

reading rates are measured weekly and

then charted so that they can see their

gains in speed, speed itself becomes the

default goal of repeated readings and all

of fluency instruction.

It is not difficult to see the

manifestations of fluency instruction

in many classrooms. Students graph

their own reading rates to see gain.

I have witnessed students respond

to requests to read orally with “Do

you want me to read this story as fast

as I can?” I am increasingly hearing

students describe the “best” reader

in their class as one “who reads fast.”

I know of no compelling research

that has demonstrated that a primary

focus on increasing reading speed

results in improved comprehension

and satisfaction in reading. Indeed,

I have seen cases in which students’

comprehension actually declines as they

learn to blow through periods, commas,

and other forms of punctuation in their

quest for speed in reading.

Evidence of this emphasis on

reading speed can be seen in the ever-

increasing norms for reading rate that

have appeared in some commercial

fluency programs (Rasinski &

Hamman, 2010). What was considered

an average reading rate for a particular

grade level 10 years ago is now

considered below average. Although

the reading rates have increased

over the past decade, overall reading

achievement has remained stagnant.

Specific and intentional emphasis on

improving reading rates simply does

not work.

There is no question that we should

want students to increase their reading

rate. But this should happen in the way

“What students learn

from the repeated

reading of one

passage...transfers to

the new passage.”

trtr_1077.indd 518trtr_1077.indd 518 4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM

W H Y R E A D I N G F L U E N C Y S H O U L D B E H O T !

www.reading.org R T

519

that reading rate has improved for all

of you reading this article—through

authentic wide and deep reading

practice.

The Other Side of Fluency—Prosody If automaticity is the fluency link to word

recognition, prosody completes the bridge

by linking fluency to comprehension.

The more common term for prosody in

reading is reading with expression. If we think of someone who is a fluent reader

or speaker, we generally do not think of a

person who speaks or reads fast. Rather,

we are more likely to think of someone

who uses their voice to help convey

meaning to a listener when speaking or

reading orally. Prosody enhances and

adds to the meaning of a text. Take, for

example, the following sentence:

Robert borrowed my new bicycle.

This declarative sentence describes an

act done by Robert. However, the simply

oral emphasis on a single word can add

implied meaning to the sentence.

Robert borrowed my new bicycle. (Robert, not Raymond, borrowed my bike.)

Robert borrowed my new bicycle. (Robert did not steal my bike.)

Robert borrowed my new bicycle. (Robert didn’t borrow your bike, he borrowed mine.)

Robert borrowed my new bicycle. (Robert didn’t borrow my old bike, he borrowed the new one.)

Robert borrowed my new bicycle. (Robert didn’t borrow my new book, he borrowed my bike.)

Emphasizing a different word

adds implied or inferred meaning—

meaning that is not explicitly stated.

Moreover, it is commonly accepted that

inferential comprehension is a higher

level of comprehension than literal

comprehension. So prosody allows the

reader to comprehend a text at a more

sophisticated level than only the text

itself offers.

Other scholars have argued that

prosody in reading also assists the

reader in identifying critical phrase

boundaries that are not marked by

punctuation (Schreiber, 1980, 1987, 1991;

Schreiber & Read, 1980). Again, prosody

allows the reader to infer information

that is not explicitly stated in the

passage.

A growing body of research is

demonstrating that prosody in oral

reading is related to overall proficiency

in reading (Benjamin & Schwanenflugel,

2010; Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006,

2008). Moreover, prosody is not an

issue solely for oral reading. Most adults

I have surveyed indicate that they

also hear themselves when they read

silently. Indeed, several studies have

found that readers at the third, fourth,

fifth, and eighth grade levels who read

orally with good prosody also tend to

be good comprehenders when reading

silently (Daane et al., 2005; Pinnell et

al., 1995; Rasinski, Rikli, & Johnston,

2009). Conversely, these same studies

have found that readers who read with

poor prosody (in a monotone and

word-by-word manner) also have poor

comprehension when reading silently.

Prosody is related to good reading—

oral and silent. So how do readers

develop their prosody in reading?

Interestingly, prosody is developed in

the very same way that automaticity,

the other component of reading fluency,

is developed—through wide and deep

reading practice. As readers read widely,

they encounter different texts that

require different prosodic elements

to read with appropriate expression

and meaning. As readers read deeply

(reading one text several times), they

gradually recognize and embed into

their reading the prosodic elements that

allow for a meaningful and expressive

rendition of the text.

In the same way that actors

rehearse a script to make a meaningful

and authentic performance, readers

read deeply to make a meaningful

performance for themselves (or

an audience, if reading to others).

Moreover, through repeated reading,

readers become more adept and efficient

at employing prosodic features into

new passages not previously read. Thus

improved prosodic reading is another

positive outcome of repeated reading.

Prosody and automaticity should

go hand in hand. Both are developed

through wide and deep reading.

However, when the goal of deep

reading is to intentionally improve

reading speed, then prosody will almost

always suffer. To read fast often means

sacrificing prosody (as well as meaning).

Fast reading very often is devoid of

meaningful expression. Indeed, I feel

that excessively fast reading can be

just as disfluent as excessively slow

reading—prosody and meaning are

compromised in both excessively fast

and slow reading.

Prosody is developed through wide

and deep practice, as with automaticity.

However, the goal of the deep practice

has little to do with improved reading

speed. When prosody is emphasized,

“Prosody allows the reader to infer

information that is not explicity

stated in the passage.”

trtr_1077.indd 519trtr_1077.indd 519 4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM

W H Y R E A D I N G F L U E N C Y S H O U L D B E H O T !

520

The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 8 May 2012R T

the goal of the wide and repeated

reading is to achieve an expressive oral

reading of the passage that reflects

and enhances the meaning of the

passage. This, to me, is an authentic

form of repeated readings. And when

the goal of wide and repeated readings

is to improve fluency to enhance

comprehension, then fluency becomes

hot again.

Teaching Fluency Authentically and Artfully The science of teaching reading has

shown us that reading fluency is a

key component to proficient reading

and that teacher-guided wide and

deep reading are two ways to improve

reading. The art of teaching reading

challenges all teachers to embed the

science of reading instruction into their

classrooms in ways that are authentic,

engaging, and meaningful for students

and that are integrated into the school

reading curriculum.

Wide reading is already a staple

in classroom reading instruction. All

reading curricula worth their salt have

students read authentic materials widely,

whether stories from basal reading

series or trade books, and follow that

reading with discussions for deepening

comprehension and instructional

activities aimed at building specific

reading skills and strategies.

Deep or repeated readings are

less well integrated into the regular

reading and school curriculum. In

many classrooms, as mentioned earlier,

fluency is a separate add-on part of the

reading curriculum in which students

read and reread short passages, usually

informational in nature, for the purpose

of increasing their reading rates.

Performance and Voice How can deep reading be made more

authentic and integral to the reading

curriculum? One answer comes from

the notion of performance for an

audience. Actors, singers, poetry readers,

and other performers have a natural

reason to rehearse or engage in repeated

readings—the performance itself.

They wish to convey meaning with

their voice. Thus, in classrooms, when

reading can be cast is such a way that

the text will eventually be performed,

readers will have an authentic reason to

engage in repeated readings. Moreover,

the repeated reading is not aimed at

improving reading speed, but in being

able to engage in an oral reading that

an audience will find meaningful and

satisfying. A reading performance

provides the authentic reason for

repeated readings.

Are there texts that lend themselves

to performance? The answer is quite

obvious—readers theater scripts,

dialogues, monologues, poetry, song

lyrics, speeches and oratory, and, of

course, narratives or stories all lend

themselves to performance. Such

texts have embedded in them a strong

sense of voice (Culham, 2003). Voice is

a quality of writing that is manifested

when a reader can “hear” the voice

of the writer when reading. Voice in

writing, then, is the flip side of prosody

in reading. Materials that are written

with voice are materials that are meant

to be read with voice or prosody.

Thus an authentic approach to

deep or repeated readings involves

students rehearsing a text (script, song,

poem, speech, etc.) over the course of

a day or several days for the purpose

of eventually performing the text for

an audience of listeners. Imagine a

classroom where the teacher assigns

students a poem, song, readers theatre

script, or other such text on a Monday.

Then, throughout the week, students

rehearse their assigned text in school

under the coaching of the teacher and

at home with parental support. On

Fridays, students perform their assigned

piece for an audience of classmates,

parents, students, and teachers from

other classrooms and even the school

principal.

Such classrooms do exist. Indeed,

classroom-based research has shown

that this approach to deep reading

does result in readers who make

significant gains in reading with

meaningful expression (prosody), read

with improved automaticity in word

recognition (read faster when assessed),

demonstrate greater comprehension of

passages read orally and silently, and

“The repeated reading is not aimed at

improving reading speed, but in being able to

engage in an oral reading that an audience will

find meaningful and satisfying.”

trtr_1077.indd 520trtr_1077.indd 520 4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM

W H Y R E A D I N G F L U E N C Y S H O U L D B E H O T !

www.reading.org R T

521

find greater satisfaction and enjoyment

in authentic reading experiences

(Griffith & Rasinski, 2004; Martinez,

Roser, & Strecker, 1999; Rasinski &

Stevenson, 2005; Young & Rasinski;

2009).

An approach to fluency such as this

requires an expansion of what counts

as appropriate reading materials. In

most current classrooms, informational

texts and narratives (stories) rule.

This authentic approach to fluency

requires us to consider texts meant

to be performed. Readers Theatre

scripts, poetry, dialogues, monologues,

speeches, and the like are available

through commercial publishers and on

the Internet. However, I have found that

students can create their own materials

for fluency. Stories from trade books

and basal reading programs as well as

content from science, social studies,

and math can be recast as scripts,

dialogues, monologues, poems, and

other performance texts. Such recasting

challenges students to think about the

content more deeply as they transform

content from one genre to another. Thus

comprehension and written expression

can become more integrally linked to

fluency.

But Is Fluency Instruction Only for the Primary Grades? This article, I hope, has convinced

you that reading fluency should

be a hot topic. Fluency is related to

comprehension and overall reading

proficiency, both in silent and oral

reading. Fluency can be taught in ways

that students find authentic, engaging,

and well connected to the literacy

curriculum, as well as to other subject

areas taught in school. Also, research

has demonstrated that authentic fluency

instruction can indeed improve students’

reading fluency, comprehension, and

attitude toward reading.

Fluency, however, is usually

considered a lower level reading skill,

one that should be mastered early

in a student’s literacy development.

For teachers in the upper elementary,

middle, and secondary grades, fluency

should not be an issue.

The fact of the matter, however,

is that even though in an ideal world

fluency is something that is acquired

early in one’s school career, teachers and

school administrators live in the real

world—a world in which many students

in the primary, intermediate, middle,

and secondary grades struggle in

reading. For many of these students, at

least one source of their reading concern

is a lack of fluency.

These students have trouble

understanding what they read because

they have significant difficulty

recognizing the words they encounter

in their reading and reading with

appropriate phrasing and expression.

Their frustration and disinterest in

reading later mount when middle and

high school reading assignments of

30 to 60 minutes become, in reality,

assignments that require 90 to 180

minutes because of their lack of

automaticity. Students’ excessively slow

reading requires double and triple the

time of more skilled readers to make it

through the same reading assignment

(Rasinski, 2000).

A growing number of studies are

demonstrating that fluency is a major

concern for students in grades 4 (Daane

et al., 2005; Pinnell et al., 1995) and 5,

in middle school (Morris & Gaffney,

2011; Rasinski et al., 2009), and in

high school (Rasinski et al., 2005).

Moreover, authentic fluency instruction

as described earlier in this article has

shown remarkable potential for helping

a wide range of students beyond the

primary grades improve their fluency,

overall reading achievement, and

motivation for reading (e.g., Biggs,

Homan, Dedrick, & Rasinski, 2008;

Griffith & Rasinski, 2004; Rasinski et al.,

2011; Solomon & Rasinski, in press).

In the way that fluency is approached

by many commercial fluency programs

around the world, fluency should not

be considered a hot issue in reading.

Fluency is more than mere reading fast,