Reading Fluency
READING FLUENCY
INTRODUCTION
Reading fluency is the ability to read connected text rapidly, effortlessly and automatically (Hook & Jones, 2004; Meyer, 2002). Readers must develop fluency to make the bridge from word recognition to reading comprehension (Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin & Deno, 2003). It is essential for all students to read fluently as they are “learning to read” up to Grade 3, but beginning in Grade 4, they are “reading to learn” (Chall, 1983). Middle school students represent a crucial starting point because they are in the midst of an important transition: they are now regularly being asked to apply their knowledge of how to read to learn from texts (Chall, 1983; Hagaman & Reid, 2008). Students with learning disabilities (“LD”) are most at risk for presenting difficulties in fluency, due to their weak ability to read sight words, decode new words, read phrases and sentences automatically and rapidly, leading to difficulties in reading comprehension (Chard, Vaughn & Tyler, 2002; Meyer & Felton, 1999).
Despite recent attention to reading fluency and ways to improve fluency, effective interventions for improving fluency are not widely known (Chard, Vaughn & Tyler, 2002).
FLUENCY
LaBerge and Samuels (1974) presented an automaticity theory of reading argued that proficient word-recognition skills underlie fluent reading and adequate comprehension of text. According to the model, fluent readers are characterized by the ability to read quickly and without conscious effort (Logan, 1997). Dysfluent readers, by contrast, are identified by their excessively slow, laborious reading, which, in turn, impairs comprehension. 1
Similarly, Perfetti’s (1977, 1985) verbal efficiency model suggested that slow word processing speed interferes with automaticity of reading, and therefore, with comprehension. Perfetti extended this explanation to suggest that slow word reading may be due to working memory. Thus, both rapid reading of
INTRODUCTION
Reading fluency is the ability to read connected text rapidly, effortlessly and automatically (Hook & Jones, 2004; Meyer, 2002). Readers must develop fluency to make the bridge from word recognition to reading comprehension (Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin & Deno, 2003). It is essential for all students to read fluently as they are “learning to read” up to Grade 3, but beginning in Grade 4, they are “reading to learn” (Chall, 1983). Middle school students represent a crucial starting point because they are in the midst of an important transition: they are now regularly being asked to apply their knowledge of how to read to learn from texts (Chall, 1983; Hagaman & Reid, 2008). Students with learning disabilities (“LD”) are most at risk for presenting difficulties in fluency, due to their weak ability to read sight words, decode new words, read phrases and sentences automatically and rapidly, leading to difficulties in reading comprehension (Chard, Vaughn & Tyler, 2002; Meyer & Felton, 1999).
Despite recent attention to reading fluency and ways to improve fluency, effective interventions for improving fluency are not widely known (Chard, Vaughn & Tyler, 2002).
FLUENCY
LaBerge and Samuels (1974) presented an automaticity theory of reading argued that proficient word-recognition skills underlie fluent reading and adequate comprehension of text. According to the model, fluent readers are characterized by the ability to read quickly and without conscious effort (Logan, 1997). Dysfluent readers, by contrast, are identified by their excessively slow, laborious reading, which, in turn, impairs comprehension. 1
Similarly, Perfetti’s (1977, 1985) verbal efficiency model suggested that slow word processing speed interferes with automaticity of reading, and therefore, with comprehension. Perfetti extended this explanation to suggest that slow word reading may be due to working memory. Thus, both rapid reading of
Bibliography: Aro, M., Aro, T., Ahonen, T., Ra¨sa¨nen, T., Hietala, A., & Lyytinen, H. (1999). The development of phonological abilities and their relation to reading acquisition: Case studies of six Finnish children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(5), 457–463, 478. Arreaga-Mayer, C., Terry, B. J., & Greenwood, C. R. (1998). Classwide peer tutoring. In K. Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted learning (pp. 105–120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Biemiller, A. (1978). Relationships between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simple text in the development of reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 13(2), 223-253. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw Hill. Chard, D.J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386-406. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empircal, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. Hagaman, J. L., & Reid, R. (2008). The Effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29(4), 222-234. Hook, P.E., & Jones, S.D. (2004). The Importance of Automaticity and Fluency for Efficient Reading Comprehension. Perspectives, 24 (2), 16-21. Hudson, R., Pullen, P., Lane, P., & Torgesen, J. (2009). The complex nature of reading fluency: A multidimensional view. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(1), 432. 5 Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729. Jitendra, A., Edwards, L., Starostra, K., Stacks, G., Jacobson, L., & Choutka, C. (2004). Early reading intervention for children with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 421-439. Kame’enui, E., & Simmons, D. (2001). The DNA of reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 203-210. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices (Technical Report No. 2-008). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323. Manis, F. R., Mcbride-Chang, C., Seidenberg, M. S., Keating, P., Doi, L. M., & Munson, B., et al. (1997). Are speech perception deficits associated with developmental dyslexia? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66(2), 211– 235. Meyer, M. S. 2002. Repeated reading: an old standard is revisited and renovated. Perspectives. Vol.28. No.1. Winter. Baltimore, MD: The International Dyslexia Association. Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approached and new direction. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Perfetti, C. A. (1977). Language comprehension and fast decoding: Some psycholinguistic prerequisites for skilled reading comprehension. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Cognition, curriculum, and comprehension (pp. 20-41). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. 6 Richardson, U. (1998). Familial dyslexia and sound duration in the quantity distinctions of Finnish infants and adults (Studia Philologia Jyväskyläensia, No.44). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Samuels, J., Miller, N., & Eisenberg, P. (1979). Practice effects on the unit of word recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 514-520. Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261. Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Torgesen, J. K. (1997). The prevention and remediation of reading disabilities: Evaluating what we know from research. Journal of Academic Language Therapy, 1, 11-47. Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 130-158). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Wimmer, H. (1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(1), 1–33. Wimmer, H. (1996). The early manifestation of developmental dyslexia: Evidence from German children. Reading and Writing, 8(2), 171–188. Wolf, M., Bowers, P., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 387-407. Wolf, M., Miller, L, & Donnelly, K. (2000). The Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabularly Elaboration, Orthography (RAVE-O).: A comprehensive fluency-based reading intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 375-386. 7