docEDITED_DL_Why Fluency Matters Plain Talk. 2.2015
download 
Report Transcription
EDITED_DL_Why Fluency Matters Plain Talk. 2.2015
Why Fluency Matters — Timothy Rasinski — Plain Talk About Reading February 9-11, 2015 | New Orleans About the Presenter Timothy Rasinski Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D., is professor of literacy education at Kent State University and director of the reading clinic there. Tim taught for several years as an elementary and middle school classroom and Title I teacher in Nebraska. He has written over 200 articles and has authored, co-authored or edited over 50 books or curriculum programs on reading education. His scholarly interests include reading fluency and word study, reading in the elementary and middle grades, and readers who struggle. His research on reading has been cited by the National Reading Panel and has been published in journals such as Reading Research Quarterly, The Reading Teacher, Reading Psychology, and the Journal of Educational Research. In 2010 Tim was elected to the International Reading Hall of Fame. About CDL Founded in 1992, the Center for Development and Learning (CDL) is a results-driven 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. CDL’s mission is to improve the life chances of all children, especially those at high risk, by increasing school success. We believe that all children, regardless of how they look, where they come from, or how they learn, can and will achieve school success when provided with highly effective teachers and positive, supportive learning environments. CDL’s services fall into three silos: 1. Evidence-based professional development for teachers, principals, teacher leaders, related specialists, paraprofessionals, parents and caregivers 2. Direct services to students 3. Public engagement of stakeholders at all levels CDL’s professional learning services comprise approximately 85% of our work. For over 18 years, we have been a trusted source of specialized professional learning services for educators. CDL’s professional learning is designed, facilitated, evaluated and adjusted to meet the needs of the learners. In collaboration with school and district leaders and teachers, we examine student and teacher data and build professional learning in response to student and teacher performance. We evaluate progress frequently and adjust accordingly. We have special expertise in literacy, building collaborative capacity, leadership and talent management, high-yield teaching strategies and tactics, differentiated instruction, and learner-specific instruction. Call us – we are ready to serve you. One Galleria Blvd., Suite 903 | Metairie, LA 70001 Phone: (504) 840-9786 | Fax: (504) 840-9968 | Email: [email protected] | Web: www.cdl.org PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Why Fluency Matters! Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D. Kent State University PSI Expert Partner [email protected] Slug by slug, weed by weed Boy this garden's got me teed All the insects come to feed On my tomato plants Sunburnt face, skinned up knees The kitchen's choked with zucchinis I'm shopping at the A&P's Next time I get the chance Let’s Start with a Song (and a metaphor) by David Mallett Inch by inch, row by row Gonna make this garden grow Gonna mulch it deep and low Gonna make it fertile ground Inch by inch, row by row Please bless these seeds I sow Please keep them safe below ‘Till the rain comes tumbling down Why Sing? I’ll Take Manhattan! Why Sing? It’ ’s Reading! The Center for Development and Learning We'll have Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too. It's lovely going through the zoo. It's very fancy on old Delancey Street, you know. The subway charms us so when balmy breezes blow to and fro. 1 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 From: Rebecca I Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:04 PM To: RASINSKI, TIMOTHY Subject: Singing and Fluency And tell me what street compares with Mott Street in July? Sweet pushcarts gently gliding by. The great big city's a wondrous toy, just made for a girl and boy. We'll turn Manhattan into an isle of joy. Rodgers and Hart, 1929 \ Hi Dr. Rasinski, Over the summer and again in October you spoke at Teachers College about the power of singing. I challenged myself in October to begin singing with my students and they have been singing ever since. I've thanked you once and have to thank you AGAIN. I have never seen so much progress in reading. Everyone of my first graders is reading on grade level (or higher) and they love to sing. Reader's Theater has also made a difference. You have changed the way I teach. My students enter my classroom most mornings with their current song playing. They hum or sing throughout the day. I am so proud of these joyful learners. Thank you again, Becky I South Street School Danbury, CT My Personal Fluency Story…… My Personal Fluency Story…… Fluency became HOT for me. Then came the National Reading Panel… and fluency became HOT! But fluency was still “neglected.”” The Center for Development and Learning 2 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Reading Today Then came the National Reading Panel… and fluency became HOT! But fluency grew to be associated only with speed reading, oral reading, and only primary grade students. What’s Hot in Reading Today? Reading Fluency: 2009 NOT HOT Reading Today Reading Today What’s Hot in Reading Today? What’s Hot in Reading Today? Reading Fluency: Reading Fluency: Reading Fluency: Reading Fluency: Reading Fluency: 2009 NOT HOT 2010 NOT HOT Reading Today Reading Today What’s Hot in Reading Today? Reading Reading Reading Reading Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: 2009 2010 2011 2012 NOT NOT NOT NOT 2009 NOT HOT 2010 NOT HOT 2011 NOT HOT! What’s Hot in Reading Today? HOT HOT HOT! HOT! The Center for Development and Learning Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT HOT HOT HOT! HOT! HOT! 3 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Reading Today Reading Today What’s Hot in Reading Today? What’s Hot in Reading Today? Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: Fluency: 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT HOT HOT HOT! HOT! HOT! HOT! Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading AND IT Fluency: 2009 Fluency: 2010 Fluency: 2011 Fluency: 2012 Fluency: 2013 Fluency: 2014 SHOULDN’T BE NOT HOT NOT HOT NOT HOT! NOT HOT! NOT HOT! NOT HOT! HOT!!!!! Reading First – Why it Didn’t Work Out u Maybe Fluency Doesn’t Matter After All! Reading First – Why it Didn’t Work Out Less than 5 minutes per day was devoted to fluency instruction in Reading First and non-Reading First classrooms. The Center for Development and Learning 4 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Common Core Standards (Foundational Skills) u Reading Fluency (Grades 1-5): Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension. a. Read on-level text with purpose and understanding. b. Read on-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. c. Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary. Source: Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (CCSS, 2010, p. 17) A Traditional Model of Word Study Planet Reading Instruction Accuracy in: Phonics (Word Decoding) Spelling Vocabulary Surface level -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deep level Comprehension Comprehension Strategies Planet Plane The Center for Development and Learning Planet Plane Plan 5 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Planet Plane Plan Pan Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Car Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Car Care Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Car Care Hare Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Car Care Hare Hear The Center for Development and Learning 6 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Car Care Hare Hear Heart Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Car Care Hare Hear Heart Hearth Earth Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Car Care Hare Hear Heart Hearth Planet Plane Plan Pan Can Car Care Hare Hear Heart Hearth Earth Earth Day – April 22nd The Center for Development and Learning 7 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Earth Day – April 22nd Terr/Terra Earth Day – April 22nd Terr/Terra terrace terrain Earth Day – April 22nd Earth Day – April 22nd Terr/Terra Terr/Terra terrace terrain territory terra cotta terrace terrain territory terra cotta terrazzo subterranean ET Earth Day – April 22nd Terr/Terra terrace terrain territory terra cotta terrazzo subterranean ET Mediterranean The Center for Development and Learning Can Vocabulary be Taught Artfully? 8 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 A Traditional Model of Word Study Reading Instruction A “Bridge” ” Model of Reading Instruction Word Study Accuracy in: Accuracy in: Phonics (Word Decoding) Spelling Vocabulary Phonics (Word Decoding) Spelling Vocabulary Something is Missing Here Fluency Instruction Automaticity in Word Recognition Prosody (Expressiveness in Reading) Surface level -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deep level Surface level -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deep level Comprehension Comprehension Comprehension Strategies A “Bridge” ” Model of Reading Instruction Word Study Accuracy in: Comprehension Strategies Reading Speed is an Indicator of Word Recognition Automaticity. Phonics (Word Decoding) Spelling Vocabulary Fluency Instruction Automaticity in Word Recognition Prosody (Expressiveness in Reading) Surface level -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deep level Comprehension Comprehension Strategies Reading Speed is an Indicator of Word Recognition Automaticity. Reading Speed is an Indicator of Word Recognition Automaticity. However, Reading Speed is NOT Word Recognition Automaticity. However, Reading Speed is NOT Word Recognition Automaticity. We don’t teach Automaticity through Instruction on Reading Speed The Center for Development and Learning 9 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Wagging a dog’’s tail for them does not make the dog happy! Wagging a dog’’s tail for them does not make the dog happy! Teaching students to read fast does not improve their fluency. A “Bridge” ” Model of Reading Instruction Word Study Accuracy in: Phonics (Word Decoding) Spelling Vocabulary Fluency Instruction Automaticity in Word Recognition Prosody (Expressiveness in Reading) Surface level -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Deep level Comprehension Comprehension Strategies NAEP ORAL READING STUDY 4TH Grade Students Silent Comprehension Score DUDE!!! The Center for Development and Learning Fluent Readers 249 10 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 NAEP ORAL READING STUDY 4TH Grade Students NAEP ORAL READING STUDY 4TH Grade Students Silent Comprehension Score Silent Comprehension Score Fluent Readers 249 Fluent Readers 249 Moderately Fluent Readers 229 Moderately Fluent 229 Somewhat Disfluent 207 NAEP ORAL READING STUDY 4TH Grade Students NAEP ORAL READING STUDY 4TH Grade Students Silent Comprehension Score Silent Comprehension Score Goal ! Fluent Readers 249 Fluent Readers 249 Moderately Fluent 229 Moderately Fluent 229 Somewhat Disfluent 207 Somewhat Disfluent 207 Disfluent “Robot” Readers 179 Disfluent Readers 179 NAEP ORAL READING STUDY 4TH Grade Students Teaching Fluency Silent Comprehension Score Means! Goal! Fluent Readers 249 Moderately Fluent 229 Somewhat Disfluent 207 Disfluent Readers 179 The Center for Development and Learning 11 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Building Blocks of Fluency Fluent Reading Reading u Practice u Phrasing Building Blocks of Fluency u Model u Model u Assisted u Assisted Building Blocks of Fluency u Model Fluent Reading u Assisted Reading u Practice u Phrasing Forms of Assisted Reading u Choral Reading u Paired Reading (NIM) u Audio Assisted Reading Fluent Reading Reading u Practice u Phrasing Assisted Reading It’s like learning to ride a bike…. In a 27 week intervention, students received a daily 15-25 minute instructional intervention in which they read along silently while listening to the same passages on tape presented through a personal cassette recorder. Students read and listened to passages repeatedly until they felt they could read the text fluently on their own. (Pluck, reported in Rasinski, 2010) The Center for Development and Learning 12 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Building Blocks of Fluency Average student gain in the program was 2.2 years; some students made as much as 4 years progress in reading during the ¾ of a year intervention. Over half the students were reading above their assigned grade level at the end of the intervention. Moreover, students maintained their gains in reading over a six week vacation. u Model Fluent Reading Reading u Practice u Phrasing u Assisted (Pluck, reported in Rasinski, 2010) Types of Practice Types of Practice Wide Reading Practice Wide Reading Practice Deep Reading (Repeated Reading) Wide Reading A x Wide Reading (A summary of the research) A B x The Center for Development and Learning 13 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Wide Reading Deep (Repeated) Reading (A summary of the research) A 2 B A C x Deep (Repeated) Reading (A summary of the research) 1 Deep (Repeated) Reading (A summary of the research) A A 3 2 x 4 3 2 1 x Deep (Repeated) Reading (A summary of the research) A 4 1 Deep (Repeated) Reading (A summary of the research) A 3 B 3 4 3 B 3 2 2 2 2 1 x 1 The Center for Development and Learning 1 x 1 14 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Deep (Repeated) Reading Deep (Repeated) Reading (A summary of the research) A 4 (A summary of the research) A 3 B 3 C 2 4 3 B 3 2 C 2 1 2 1 x 2 1 2 1 What would motivate a reader to read something deeply or repeatedly? 1 x 1 What would motivate a reader to read something repeatedly? Performance! Texts that are Meant to be Performed We Need More Poetry! u Poetry u Readers Theater Scripts u Song Lyrics u Dialogues u Monologues u Speeches The Center for Development and Learning 15 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Building Blocks of Fluency u Model Fluent Reading Reading u Practice u Phrasing u Assisted Phrasing We the people… For score and seven years ago… Once upon a time… Play ball! … in my house. … by the old mill stream. Inch by inch… Building Blocks to Fluency u Model Fluent Reading u Assisted Reading u Practice u Phrasing u Synergistic Fluency Instruction (putting it all together – Fluency Development Lesson) Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson u Daily Text (Poem) & 15-20 minutes The purpose of the FDL is to get students to the point where they can read a new text well (fluently and with understanding) every day. The Center for Development and Learning 16 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson u Teacher model reads poem. Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson model reads poem. and Teacher chorally read. u Students practice poem with partner. Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson u Teacher model reads poem. u Students and Teacher chorally read. Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson u Teacher u Teacher u Students u Students Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson model reads poem. and Teacher chorally read. u Students practice poem with partner. u Students perform poem. u Examine and play with words from poem. model reads poem. and Teacher chorally read. u Students practice poem with partner. u Students perform poem. Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson u Teacher u Teacher u Students u Students The Center for Development and Learning model reads poem. and Teacher chorally read. u Students practice poem with partner. u Students perform poem. u Examine and play with words from poem. u More practice of poem at home. 17 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Synergy – The Fluency Development Lesson u Teacher model reads poem. u Students and Teacher chorally read. u Students practice poem with partner. u Students perform poem. u Examine and play with words from poem. u More practice of poem at home. u REPEAT DAILY! RESULTS “Following the summer camp poetry reading program and second round of tests, 93% of the Monroe County School Corp passed the I-Read 3 Test.” Lorraine Griffith: 4th grade teacher West Buncombe County Elementary. Poetry Repeated Reading: 2+ years average growth of struggling readers 59 words correct per minute gain (25 wcpm is the normal gain for grade 4) Bloomington Herald Times Griffith, L. W., & Rasinski, T. V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58, 126- 137. Rhonda P 6th grade teacher South Carolina Using poetry performance as the fluency intervention in her classroom Rhonda P 6th grade teacher South Carolina Using poetry performance as the fluency intervention in her classroom Student Profile in Reading Beginning of the Year u u u u u Student Profile in Reading Beginning of the Year End of Year Below Basic: 67% Basic: 30% Proficient: 3% Advanced: 0% The Center for Development and Learning u u u u u Below Basic: 67% Basic: 30% Proficient: 3% Advanced: 0% End of Year 25% 24% 45% 6% 18 PLAIN TALK ABOUT READING AND LEARNING New Orleans, LA |February 9-11, 2015 Other Studies… u u u u u u Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing readers theatre as an approach to classroom fluency instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4– 13. Biggs, M., Homan, S., Dedrick, R., & Rasinski, T. (2008). Using an interactive singing software program: A comparative study of middle school struggling readers. Reading Psychology, An International Quarterly, 29, 195-213. Wilfong, L.G. (2008). Building Fluency, Word-Recognition Ability, and Confidence in Struggling Readers: The Poetry Academy. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 4–13. Rasinski, T., & Stevenson, B. (2005). The Effects of Fast Start Reading, A Fluency Based Home Involvement Reading Program, On the Reading Achievement of Beginning Readers. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 26, 109-125. Take Away…. FLUENCY DOES MATTER BECAUSE FLUENCY LEADS TO CONFIDENT READERS WHO BETTER COMPREHEND WHAT THEY READ! Martinez, M., Roser, N., & Strecker, S. (1999). “I never thought I could be a star”: A Readers Theatre ticket to reading fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52, 326-334. Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., Linek, W. L., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of fluency development on urban second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 158–165. I Wish you Great SUCCESS To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded. I wish you great SUCCESS To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded. Timothy Rasinski, Ph.D. u [email protected] u 330-672-0649 For more on reading fluency see: Rasinski, T. (2010). The Fluent Reader (2nd edition). New York: Scholastic. And this is to have been a teacher! The Center for Development and Learning 19 516 THE INSIDE TR ACK W H Y RE ADI NG F LU ENC Y SHOU LD BE HOT! 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. R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 8 pp. 516–522 The Center for Development and Learning trtr_1077.indd 516 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]. DOI:10.1002/TRTR.01077 © 2012 International Reading Association 20 4/25/2012 11:35:52 AM 517 W H Y R E A DI NG F LU E NC Y SHOU LD BE HO T! 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. “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.” 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 Figure A Critical Bridge in 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 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 Word Recognition Fluency: Automaticity Prosody Comprehension www.reading.org The Center for Development and Learning trtr_1077.indd 517 R T 21 4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM 518 W H Y R E A DI NG F LU E NC Y SHOU LD BE HO 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 R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 8 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 “What students learn from the repeated reading of one passage...transfers to the new passage.” May 2012 The Center for Development and Learning trtr_1077.indd 518 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 everincreasing 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 22 4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM 519 W H Y R E A DI NG F LU E NC Y SHOU LD BE HO T! 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 “Prosody allows the reader to infer information that is not explicity stated in the passage.” 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, www.reading.org The Center for Development and Learning trtr_1077.indd 519 R T 23 4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM 520 W H Y R E A DI NG F LU E NC Y SHOU LD BE HO T! “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.” 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 R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 8 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 May 2012 The Center for Development and Learning trtr_1077.indd 520 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 24 4/25/2012 11:35:53 AM 521 W H Y R E A DI NG F LU E NC Y SHOU LD BE HO T! “A growing number of studies are demonstrating that fluency is a major concern for students in grades 4 and 5, in middle school, and in high school.” 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, more than reading orally, more than an instructional issue for only young readers, more than a separate area of the reading curriculum. When fluency instruction is treated as both an art and a science that can be taught through authentic and engaging forms of deep and teacher-supported reading, then fluency will be the hot topic that is was 10 years ago. More importantly, when we as reading professionals recognize the power of teaching fluency using scientific principles and artistic approaches, fluency can and will make a significant impact on the reading achievement and reading dispositions of all readers, especially those whom we consider most at risk. www.reading.org The Center for Development and Learning trtr_1077.indd 521 R T 25 4/25/2012 11:35:54 AM 522 W H Y R E A DI NG F LU E NC Y SHOU LD BE HO T! R E F E R E NC E S Benjamin, R., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (2010). Text complexity and oral reading prosody in young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 388–404. Biggs, M., Homan, S., Dedrick, R., & Rasinski, T.V. (2008). Using an interactive singing software program: A comparative study of middle school struggling readers. Reading Psychology. An International Quarterly, 29(3), 195–213. Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2010). What’s hot for 2010. Reading Today, 26(4), 1, 8–9. Cassidy, J., Ortlieb, E., & Shettel, J. (2011). What’s hot for 2011. Reading Today, 28(3), 1, 6–8. Chall, J.S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Chard, D.J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406. MORE TO EX PLORE ReadWriteThink.org Lesson Plans ■ “A Is for Apple: Building Letter-Recognition Fluency” by Jennifer Prior ■ “Improving Fluency Through Group Literary Performance” by Devon Hamner IRA Books Fluency: Differentiated Interventions and Progress-Monitoring Assessments (4th ed.) by Jerry L. Johns and Roberta L. Berglund ■ What Research Has to Say About Fluency Instruction edited by S. Jay Samuels and Alan E. Farstrup ■ IRA Journal Articles “Literacy Trends and Issues: A Look at the Five Pillars and the Cement That Supports Them” by Jack Cassidy, Corinne Montalvo Valadez, and Sherrye D. Garrett, The Reading Teacher, May 2010 ■ “Putting Fluency on a Fitness Plan: Building Fluency’s Meaning-Making Muscles” by Barclay Marcell, The Reading Teacher, December 2011 ■ R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 8 Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 Traits of Writing. New York: Scholastic. Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourthgrade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Dowhower, S.L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 10(4), 343–358. 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. Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.A. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. Martinez, M., Roser, N., & Strecker, S. (1999). “I never thought I could be a star”: A Readers Theatre ticket to reading fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52(4), 326–334. Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 839–843. Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 336–354. Morris, D., & Gaffney, M. (2011). Building reading fluency in a learning-disabled middle school reader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 331–341. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Report of the subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Pikulski, J.J., & Chard, D.J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519. Pinnell, G.S., Pikulski, J.J., Wixson, K.K., Campbell, J.R., Gough, P.B., & Beatty, A.S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Rasinski, T.V. (2000). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 146–151. Rasinski, T.V. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, May 2012 The Center for Development and Learning trtr_1077.indd 522 automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704–706. Rasinski, T.V. (2010). The fluent reader: Oral and silent reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd ed.). New York: Scholastic. Rasinski, T.V., & Hamman, P. (2010). Fluency: Why it is “not hot.”. Reading Today, 28(1), 26. Rasinski, T.V., & Hoffman, J.V. (2003). Theory and research into practice: Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 510–522. Rasinski, T.V., & Stevenson, B. (2005). The effects of Fast Start reading, a fluency based home involvement reading program, on the reading achievement of beginning readers. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 26(2), 109–125. Rasinski, T.V., Padak, N.D., McKeon, C.A., Wilfong, L.G., Friedauer, J.A., & Heim, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(1), 22–27. Rasinski, T.V., Reutzel, C.R., Chard, D., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2011). Reading fluency. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 4, pp. 286–319). New York: Routledge. Rasinski, T.V., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More than a concern for the primary grades? Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 350–361. Samuels, S.J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408. Schreiber, P.A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12(3), 177–186. Schreiber, P.A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children’s syntactic processing. In R. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 243–270). New York: Academic. Schreiber, P.A. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisition. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 158–164. Schreiber, P.A., & Read, C. (1980). Children’s use of phonetic cues in spelling, parsing, and—maybe—reading. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 209–224. Solomon, D., & Rasinski, T. (in press). Improving intermediate grade students’ reading fluency, comprehension, and motivation through the readers’ theater club. Reading in the Middle. Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing readers theatre as an approach to classroom fluency instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4–13. 26 4/25/2012 11:35:54 AM
