THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 1
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
IMPACTOFSHORT-TERMINTENSEFLUENCYINSTRUCTIONONSTUDENTS’READINGACHIEVEMENT:ACLASSROOM-BASED,TEACHER-INITIATEDRESEARCHSTUDYKristyDiSalle
DorrStreetElementarySchool,Toledo,OH
TimothyRasinski,Ph.D.
KentStateUniversity,Kent,OH
Abstract
Reading fluency continues to be a critical factor in elementary students’ reading development. Many students, who struggle in reading, manifest difficulties in some area of fluency. In the present study, a fourth grade teacher implemented the Fluency Development Lesson (FDL), an intensive fluency instructional routine, with her six lowest achieving students. In a twelve-week implementation of the FDL all students made significant and substantial progress in both fluency and reading comprehension. The authors make a call for more studies of intensive fluency interventions to demonstrate and confirm their effectiveness.
Keywords:Fluency,Comprehension,Reading,StrugglingReaders
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 2
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Introduction
Recentpolicypositionsandscholarlyresearchinreadingeducationhaveidentified
readingfluencyasacriticalandessentialreadingcompetencythatisnecessaryforfull
proficiencyinreading.BoththeNationalReadingPanel(2000)andtheCommonCoreState
Standards(2016)havenotedreadingfluencyasfoundationalforreadinggrowthandshould
bemasteredintheelementarygrades.Researchhasfoundthatapproximately75%of
studentswhostruggleinhighstakestestsofreadingachievementdemonstratedifficultyin
oneormorecomponentsofreadingfluency(i.e.,wordrecognitionaccuracy,word
recognitionautomaticity,andreadingprosody)(Valencia&Buly,2004).Moreover,other
researchhasshownmanystudentsbeyondtheelementarygradescontinuetostrugglein
readingfluencyandthatmeasuresofreadingfluencycontinuetobehighlycorrelatedwith
overallreadingproficiency(Paige,Magpuri-Lavell,Rasinski,&Smith,2013;Paige,Rasinski,
&Magpuri-Lavell,2012;Rasinski,Padak,McKeon,Krug,-Wilfong,Friedauer,&Heim,2005).
Indeed,comprehensiveandscholarlyreviewsofresearchrelatedtofluencyhaveconcluded
thatitacriticalcomponentforsuccessinlearningtoread(Chard,Vaughn,&Tyler,2002;
Kuhn&Stahl,2003:Rasinski,Reutzel,Chard,&Linan-Thompson,2011).
LiteratureReview
Fluencyisimportantbecauseitisaprerequisitetomoresophisticatedlevelsofreading
comprehension(Rasinski,2012).Oncestudentsareabletoreadwordsintextsaccurately,
automaticallyandwithexpressionthatreflectsmeaning,studentsaremoreabletofocus
theircognitiveresourcesonmakingmeaning-comprehension—ratherthanonthemore
basicandfoundationalcompetenciesinreading–wordrecognition.
Despitethescholarlyworkthathasconsistentlydemonstratedtherelevanceofreading
fluencytoreadingachievement,thereseemstobeadegreeofdismissivenesstoward
fluencywithintheliteracycommunity.IntheannualWhat’sHot;What’sNotsurveyofliteracyexperts(e.g.,Cassidy,&Grote-Garcia,2014)readingfluencyhasbeenconsistently
identifiedasareadingcompetencythatisnothotandshouldnotbehot.WhiletheWhat’sHot;What’sNotsurveydoesnotspeculateastothereasonsforthisreactiontofluency,itmaybethatthenegativereactiontofluencyhasbeencausedbythewayinwhichfluency
instructionhasbeenmanifestedinmanyprogrammaticapproachestofluency.Inthese
programs,fluencyismeasuredbystudents’readingspeedasmeasuredbywordsread
correctlyperminute(WCPM).Researchacknowledgesthatthisisanappropriatemeasure
ofwordrecognitionautomaticitywhichitselfisrelatedtogeneralreadingproficiency
(Fuchs,Fuchs,Hamlett,Walz,&Germann,1993;Fuchs,Fuchs,Hosp,&Jenkins,2001).
Giventhecorrelationbetweenreadingspeedandwordrecognitionautomaticity,many
fluencyinstructionalprogramsaswellasmanywell-meaningteachershaveimplicitly
reversedthelogicandmadeinstructionthatfocusesonincreasingreadingrateasthe
primarymethodforimprovingfluency.Weseethismanifestedintheregularuseoftimedreadingsinwhichstudentsareaskedtoreadandrereadrelativelyshortpassagesatanever
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 3
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
quickerpace.Thistypeofspeed-orientedreadingisinoppositiontotheauthenticmeaningfulreadingthatmostreadingscholarsfeeliskeytoreadinggrowth.Moreover,thereisnocompellingresearchthathasdemonstratedthatexplicitinstructioninincreasingstudents’readingspeedresultsinimprovedoverallreading.
Literacyscholarssuggestthatreadingfluencyisbestdevelopedthroughsomeverybasicreadingactivities.Theseincludewordrecognitioninstruction,listeningtofluentreadingsoftexts,widereading,repeatedreading,andassistedreadinginwhichstudentsreadatextwhilesimultaneouslyhearingthetextreadtotheminafluentmanner(Rasinski,1989,2010).Individuallythereisagoodbodyofresearchthatsupportswidereading,repeatedreading,andassistedreading(Rasinski,Reutzel,Chard,&Linan-Thompson,2011).However,evengreatereffectscanbeanticipatedwhentheseindividualinstructionalapproachesarecombinedinasynergisticandauthenticmanner.
TheFluencyDevelopmentLesson.TheFluencyDevelopmentLesson(FDL)(Rasinski,Padak,Linek,&Sturtevant,1994)wasdevelopedasafluencyinterventionthatcanbeappliedtolargegroupsoftypicallydevelopingelementarygradestudentormoreintensivelytosmallergroupsofstudentswhohaveyettoachieveproficiencyinfluencyandwhoalsostruggleinoverallreadingachievement.TheFDLisadailylessoninwhichstudentsaregiventhetaskofmasteringtothepointoffluencyanewrelativelyshort(100-200words)texteachday.Thelessontakesapproximately20minutesandcanbeimplementedwithclassroomgroups,smallgroups,orindividualstudents.ThroughoutanypartoftheFDLthereisneveranexplicitorimplicitfocusonincreasingreadingrate.ThegeneraldailyprotocolfortheFDLinvolvesthefollowingsteps:
1. Inpreparationforthelessontheteacherselectsatextfortheday.Thetextcanbeapassagefromastory,aninformationalpiece,apoem,orasong.Thetextsshouldbeatorslightlyabovethestudents’instructionalreadinglevelandshouldbeareadingwithgoodphrasingandexpression.Theteachermakestwocopiesofthetextforeverystudent,andalsomakesalargerdisplaycopyforgroupreading.
2. ModelingFluentReading.Theteacherintroducesthedisplaycopyofthetexttostudentsandreadsittothestudentstwotothreetimeswhilestudentsfollowalongsilently.Theteachercanreadthetextwithvariousformsofexpressionorlackofexpression.
3. Followingtheteacher’sreading,studentsareledinabriefdiscussionofthetextandthenatureoftheteacher’soralreading.
4. AssistedReading.Next,theteacherandstudentsreadthedisplaycopyofthetexttwotothreetimeschorally.Thechoralreadingscanchangefromthewholegroupreadingthetexttohavingdifferentsubgroupsreadthepassage.
5. AssistedandRepeatedReading.Followingthechoralreading,studentsaredividedintogroupsoftwoorthree,giventheirindividualcopiesofthetext,andaregivenaboutfiveminutestopracticethetextintheirgroups.Onestudentreadsthepassagewhilehisorherpartner(s)followalongsilently,providehelpasneeded,and
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 4
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
givepositivefeedback.Eachstudentisgiventheopportunitytopracticeinthis
manner.
6. Atthispointstudentsareabletoreadthetextwithsomedegreeoffluency.Inorder
tomaketheFDLanauthenticactivity,studentsareinvitedtoperformtheirtextfor
anaudience.Theaudiencecansimplybeotherclassmates,butitcanalsobemade
upofvolunteeradultsstationedoutsidetheclassroom,orevenotherclassroomsof
students.
7. WordWork.Attheendoftheperformancetheteacherandstudentsselect5-10
wordsfromthepassageandengageinquickwordstudyactivities.Thesecaninclude
findingotherwordsthatcontainaselectedrhymeorwordfamilyfromthepassage
(e.g.FromthepoemRainRainGoAway,other–aywordssuchasday,play,stay,andstraycanbediscoveredanddisplayedforstudentstoread),sortingthecorpusofwordsinvariousways,examiningthemorphologicalnatureofcertainwords(e.g.
tractisamorphemeintractormeanstopull;otherwordsthatcontainthetract
morphemeandthatmeantopullincludedistract,attract,extract,andcontract),andplayingwordgames(e.g.wordladdersusingwordsfromthepassage).The
formalFDLendswiththewordstudy.
8. RepeatedReading.TheFDLcontinuesathome.Studentstaketheirsecondcopyof
thepassageandareencouragedtoreadthepassagetofamilymembersathomea
selectnumberoftimes,usuallyfiveormore.
9. RepeatedReading.AnewFluencyDevelopmentLessonisimplementedthe
followingdaywithanewtext.However,beforebeginningtoreadthenewtext,the
teacherleadsstudentsinreadingandcelebratingtheirmasteryoftextsfrom
previousdays.
TeachersemployingtheFDLareencouragedtovarytheprotocoltomeettheirownstyleof
instructionandneedsofthestudents.ThekeyelementsrequiredinanyFDLaremodeling
fluentreading,assistedreading,repeatedreading,andwordwork.Thekeygoalforany
FDLisforstudentstomasteranewtext(poem)witheachlessontothepointofreadingthe
textwithgoodfluency--wordrecognitionaccuracy,automaticity,andexpression.
ThepresentactionresearchstudyattemptedtodeterminetheeffectsoftheFluency
DevelopmentLessonwhenemployedinaregularclassroomsettingwithstudentsidentified
asstrugglinginreading.Thefollowingresearchquestionguidedthestudy:Whatarethe
effectsofaregularclassroomimplementationoftheFluencyDevelopmentLessononthe
readingachievementoffourthgradestrugglingreaders?
Methodology
ImplementingtheFDLinaRealClassroomSetting.KristyDiSalleisafourthgradeteacherwhoattendedaseriesofprofessionaldevelopmentworkshopsbyTimothyRasinski.During
hisworkshopRasinskiarguedfortheneedforintensivefluencyinstructionforstruggling
readers(studentswhoarereadingatleastonegradelevelbelowtheirassignedgrade
level).HedescribedtheFDLindepthandprovidedasimulationactivityforteachers
attendingtheworkshop.Havingsixstudentsinherclasswhowerestrugglinginreading,
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 5
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
DiSalledecidedtoimplementtheFDLwiththemdailyinadditiontotheirregularreading
curriculum.Theregularreadingcurriculumincludedguidedreadingactivitiesinwhich
groupsofstudentsread,discuss,andrespondtostoriesandinformationaltexts,word
study,andwriting.
DiSallehad6studentswhowerereadingata2ndgradelevel,accordingtothereading
assessmentusedbytheschool(RenaissanceLearning,2016).KristybeganusingtheFDL
withher6strugglingstudents(3girlsand3boys)for4to5daysaweekforapproximately
20minutesperlessonforathree-monthperiod.Shealsoaddedreciprocalteaching
comprehensionactivities(Oczkus,2010)totheFDLtocreateamoreintensefocuson
comprehension.Fiveofthesixstudents(Students1through5inTable1)alsoreceived
Title1readingservices4-5daysperweekfor20minutes.Upuntiltheimplementationof
theFDL,Kristy’ssixstrugglingreadershadnotbeenmakingadequateprogress(their
readingachievementhadremainedstagnantfromthebeginningoftheschoolyearuntilthe
beginningofschooluntiltheimplementationoftheFDLprotocol)inreadingdespiteregular
classroomreadinginstructionandTitleIinterventionfor5students.TheFDLwaschosen
andimplementedforit’spotentialtoacceleratestudents’growthinreading.
OverthecourseoftheimplementationperiodtheFDLwasadministeredapproximately50
timestothegroupofstudents(becauseofabsencesnotallstudentsparticipatedinall
lessons).TheFDLinterventionwasimplementedatatableinthebackoftheclassroom.
Theremainderoftheclassworkedindependentlyattheirseatsonvocabularybuilding
activitiesduringtheFDL.Kristychoseanewpoemforeachlesson.Sheusedseasonal
themesanddifficultyofthepoemaschiefcriteriaforpoemselection.Poemswereselected
fromavarietyofauthenticsources(e.g.,Liatsos,1995;Scholastic,2004).
DiSallebegantheFDLbyhavingstudentsskimandscanthedailypoemtomakepredictions
aboutthecontentandstructureofthepoem.ThenasstudentsprogressedthroughtheFDL,
theyworkedtoclarifywordsorphrasestheydidn’tunderstand,formedquestionsabout
contentintheselection,andcreatedasummaryofthepoem.Withthepoemprojectedon
theSmartboard,studentsreadandperformedthepoemtotherestofclassusingmusic
standsdonatedbythemiddleschoolbandteacher.Kristy’swordstudyactivitiesincluded
identifyingcommonwordfamiliesinpoemsandplayingwordgamesusingwordsfromthe
selectedeachpoem.ThehomeportionoftheFDLinvolvedthestudentsreadingthepoem
threetimestofamilymembers.Oneparentcommented,“Thepoemsareagreattooltouse
athome,asweenjoyreadingtogether.Weappreciatethereadingfluencylesson,asJayis
benefitinggreatly.Thankyou!”
AssessmentMethod.TheSTARReadingassessment(RenaissanceLearning,2016),the
readingassessmentthatwaschosenbetheschooltomeasurestudents’reading
achievementandprogress,wasusedtomeasurestudents’growthinreading.Itisa
computer-adaptiveassessmentofgeneralreadingachievementandcomprehensionof
studentsingrades1through12.Theassessmentprovidesinformationonstudents’general
performanceinreadingcomprehension.Thedifficultyofitemsisadjustedautomaticallyto
reflecttheskilllevelofallstudents,includingstudentswithspecialneeds.Studentsreada
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 6
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
seriesofselections,withthelengthanddifficultydependentonthestudent’sleveland
progressduringtheassessment,andanswermultiple-choicecomprehensionquestions.
TheSTARReadingassessmentgeneratesaGradeEquivalent(GE)scoretomeasure
proficiencylevelincomprehension.TheNationalCenterforResponsetoIntervention’s
analysesoftheSTARReadingassessmentreportsvaliditycoefficientsrangingfrom.68to
.92andreliabilitycoefficientsfrom.81to.92(NationalCenterforResponsetoIntervention,
2016).
TheEstimatedOralReadingFluency(Est.ORF)ispartoftheSTARReadingassessmentandis
ameasureofproficiencyinfluency(wordrecognitionaccuracyandautomaticity),
foundationalreadingcompetenciesthatmanystudentswhostruggleinreadingarenot
proficient(Valencia&Buly,2004).TheEst.ORFwasdevelopedbylinkingSTARassessment
datawithknownoralreadingfluencyassessmentsofover12,000studentsingrades1
through4.TheEst.ORFisreportedinwordsreadcorrectlyperminuteongradelevel
material.
Results
StudentsGaininComprehensionandFluency.StudentsweretestedonNovember30,2015,
andMarch9,2016,todetermineprogress.TestingincludedtheSTARReadingtestto
determineastudent’sgrowthinreadingcomprehensionandanestimatedoralreading
fluency.TheresultsofbothassessmentscanbeseeninTables1and2.
Thetablesprovideasummaryoftheassessmentsofstudents.Table1detailstheresultsfor
eachstudentwhileTable2summarizesresultsforall6students.Inapproximately12weeks
ofusingtheFDL,thestudentsmadeonaverageslightlyoverayear’sgrowthinreading
comprehension.Oralreadingfluencyincreasedfrom69.2to96.8wordreadcorrectlyper
minute(WCPM),againof27.6WCPMduringtheimplementationoftheFDL.
Althoughonlyoneofthesixstudentsachievedgradelevelproficiencyincomprehension,
thegainsallsixstudentsmadeinbothcomprehensionandfluencyareremarkableinterms
oftheirmagnitude.Inapproximatelyonethirdofaschoolyear,studentsmadeslightlyover
ayear’sgrowthinreadingcomprehension.Moreover,attheinitialassessmentstudents’
readingcomprehensionwas,onaverage,ata2.8gradelevelequivalent.Thismeansthatin
roughly3.3yearsofreadinginstruction(Grades1through4)priortotheinitialassessment
thesixstudentsinthepresentstudymade,onaverage,slightlyoverahalfyear’sprogressin
comprehensionperyearofinstruction.Duringthe12weekFDLimplementationstudents
madeasmuchprogressincomprehensionashadbeenpreviouslymadeinapproximately2
years.
Similarly,allsixstudentsinthepresentstudyhavenotachievedbenchmarklevelsfororal
readingfluencyassetbytheSTARReadingassessment.Still,thegainsmadebystudentsin
fluencyareremarkable.Assuming3.3yearsofreadinginstructionpriortoimplementing
theFDL,thesixstudentsinthepresentstudymade,onaverageanincreaseof21WCPMper
year.Inthe12weekimplementationoftheFDL,studentsinthepresentcohortmadean
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 7
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
averagegainof27.6WCPM.Inotherwords,thestudentsinourstudyusingtheFDLmadeagreatergainina12weeksimplementationoftheFDLthanstudentshadonaveragemadeinanentireyearofreadinginstruction.
DuringtheperiodoftheFDLinterventionperiodallsixofKristy’sstrugglingreadersmadesignificantprogressinbothcomprehensionandreadingfluency.Othergainsweremeasuredbystudentfeedback.Onestudentcommented,“FDLhelpsmepresentinfrontoftheclass.ItisfunandIlikethepoemsbecausetheyaresilly.NowIreadbetter,likeIhavemoreexpression.ItalsohelpsmelearnnewwordsthatIdon’tunderstand.”Anotherstudentshared,“It(FDL)helpsmeunderstandwords.Italsohelpsmewithmyexpressionandtonotbescaredtoperforminfrontofpeople.”
Table1:StudentProgressUsingtheFluencyDevelopmentLesson
Date Student
ComprehensionGradeEquivalent
ExpectedGradePlacement
ORFScores(WCPM)
ExpectedGrade4ORF
11/12/15 1(boy) 2.8 4.23 73 125
3/9/16 3.4 4.62 93 139
GGain +0.6 +0.39 +20 +14
Date Student ComprehensionGradeEquivalent
ExpectedGradePlacement
ORFScores(WCPM)
ExpectedGrade4ORF
11/12/15 2(boy) 2.4 4.25 63 125
3/9/16 4.1 4.62 105 139
Gain +1.7 +0.37 +42 +14
Date Student ComprehensionGradeEquivalent
ExpectedGradePlacement
ORFScores(WCPM)
ExpectedGrade4ORF
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 8
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
11/12/15 2(boy) 2.4 4.25 63 125
3/9/16 4.1 4.62 105 139
Gain +1.7 +0.37 +42 +14
Date Student ComprehensionGradeEquivalent
ExpectedGradePlacement
ORFScores(WCPM)
ExpectedGrade4ORF
11/12/15 3(girl) 2.4 4.23 63 125
3/9/16 3.1 4.62 82 139
Gain +0.7 +0.39 +19 +14
Date Student ComprehensionGradeEquivalent
ExpectedGradePlacement
ORFScores(WCPM)
ExpectedGrade4ORF
11/12/15 4(boy) 2.4 4.23 63 125
3/9/16 3.4 4.62 91 139
Gain +1.0 +0.39 +28 +14
Date Student ComprehensionGradeEquivalent
ExpectedGradePlacement
ORFScores(WCPM)
ExpectedGrade4ORF
11/12/15 5(girl) 2.9 4.23 79 125
3/9/16 3.4 4.62 93 139
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 9
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Gain +0.5 +0.39 +14 +14
Date Student ComprehensionGradeEquivalent
ExpectedGradePlacement
ORFScores(WCPM)
ExpectedGrade4ORF
11/12/15 6(girl) 2.8 4.23 74 125
3/9/16 4.6 4.62 117 139
Gain +1.8 +0.39 +43 +14
Table2:StudentProgressSummaryResults
Date
ComprehensionGradeEquivalent
ExpectedGradePlacement
ORFScores(WCPM)
ExpectedGrade4ORF
11/12/15 2.6 4.23 69.2 125
3/9/16 3.7 4.62 96.8 139
Gain +1.1 +0.39 27.6 +14
DiscussionandImplications
WhatDoesThisMean?Weacknowledgethatthisnon-traditionalformofresearchhas
manylimitations.Thenumberofstudentsparticipatingisquitelowandmakesitdifficultto
generalizetoothersituations.Wedidnothaveacontrolgroupagainstwhichwecould
compareresults.Giventhattheresearchwasdonewithinanactualclassroomsetting
meantthatwecouldnotcontrolotherinstructionalandothervariablesthatmayhave
impactedtheresults.Wealsonotethatprosody,animportantcomponentofreading
fluency,wasnotassessedinthepresentstudy.Althoughparentsandteacherobservations
aswellasstudentcommentsnotedimprovementsinprosody,itwasnotformallyassessed.
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 10
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Ontheotherhand,thefactthatthisstudywasdonewithinthecontextofanactual
classroomalsomeantthatittookplaceinanauthenticschoolplacementinwhichthe
teacher(KristyDiSalle)hadtodealwithalltheclassroomexigenciesthatteachersdealwith
onadailybasis.Shewasunabletocontrolforwhenstudentsmayhavebeenillorcalled
outoftheclassroomforotherreasons.Moreover,shestillhadtodealwithissuesrelated
toherotherstudentsinherclassroomduringtheFDLinstruction.Inotherwords,thereal-
life-classroomnatureofthestudymeansthattheresultsthatwereobservedfromusingthe
FDLcanoccurwhenteachersintentionallyimplementthelessoninordertomeetthe
specificneedsofstudents.
Despitetheacknowledgedlimitationsnotedabove,wedothinkthereismuchtotakefrom
thepresentstudy.Previousresearchhasdemonstratedthatfluencyisacriticalvariablefor
readingachievement.Asreadingfluencyisachieved,readersareabletochanneltheir
cognitiveresourcestocomprehensionoftext,thetruegoalofreading.Moreover,research
hasalsoshownthatmanystudentsstruggletoachieveappropriatelevelsofreadingfluency.
Clearlyinstructionalinterventionstoimproveandevenacceleratestudents’fluency
developmentarecalledfor.Manycurrentcommercialapproachestofluencyimplicitlyor
explicitlytendtofocusonanextraneousvariabletofluency–speedofreading.These
programsimprovereadingspeed,ameasureoffluency,byfocusingstudents’attentionon
increasingspeed.Althoughreadingspeedmayincrease,thereislimitedevidencethatword
recognitionautomaticityandreadingcomprehensionalsoimprove.
Ratherthanfocusonincreasingreadingspeed,theFluencyDevelopmentLessoncombines
widelyacknowledgedcomponentsofexemplaryreadingfluencyinstructiontocreatean
authenticreadingactivityinwhichstudentsrehearseatextinordertoeventuallyperformit
foranaudience.ThepresentstudyfoundthatimplementationoftheFDLwithstudents
whohavedemonstrabledifficultyinreadingfluencycandramaticallyacceleratetheir
growthinbothreadingfluencyandcomprehensioninarelativelyshortperiodoftime.The
presentstudysuggeststhattheFDL,aswellasothersynergisticfluencyprotocols,canmake
arealdifferenceinhelpingstrugglingreadersmovetowardproficiencyinboththe
foundationalreadingcompetenciesandreadingcomprehension.
Onestudyofsixstudentsisclearlynotdefinitive.However,wehopethatthepresentstudy
willpromptotherteachersandschoolstafftoimplementtheFDLintheirownclassrooms
andschools.Theresultsofmanysmallscalestudiesconductedinrealclassroomscanmove
thefieldofliteracyeducationforwardtothepointwheremanystudentshavenewhopefor
gainingfullproficiencyinreading.
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 11
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
AbouttheAuthors
KristyDiSalle.KristyDiSalleisa4thgradeteacheratDorrStreetElementarySchoolinToledoOhio.Sheisdedicatedtocontinuingherprofessionallearninginordertoprovideherstudentswiththebestpossibleinstruction.Email:[email protected].
TimothyRasinski,Ph.D.TimothyRasinskiisaprofessorofliteracyeducationatKentStateUniversity.Hisscholarlyinterestsincludereadingfluencyandwordstudy,readerswhostruggle,andparentalinvolvement.In2010RaskinskiwaselectedtotheInternationalReadingHallofFame.Email:[email protected].
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 12
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
References
Cassidy,J.,&Grote-Garcia,S.(2014).What’sHot,What’sNotsurvey.ReadingToday,32(1),8-12.Chard,D.J.,Vaughn,S.,&Tyler,B.(2002).Asynthesisofresearchoneffectiveinterventionsfor
buildingfluencywithelementarystudentswithlearningdisabilities.JournalofLearningDisabilities,35,386-406.
CommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative(2016).CommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative.
DownloadedMay12,2016from:http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.
Fuchs,L.S.,Fuchs,D.,Hamlett,C.L.,Walz,L.,&Germann,G.(1993).Formativeevaluationofacademicprogress:Howmuchgrowthcanweexpect?SchoolPsychologyReview,22,27-48.
Fuchs,L.S.,Fuchs,D.,Hosp,M.,&Jenkins,J.(2001).Oralreadingfluencyasanindicatorofreading
competence:Atheoretical,empirical,andhistoricalanalysis.ScientificStudiesinReading,5,239-256.
Kuhn,M.R.,&Stahl,S.A.(2003).Fluency:Areviewofdevelopmentalandremedialpractices.Journal
ofEducationalPsychology,95,3-21.Liatsos,S.(1995).PoemstoCountOn:32TerrificPoemsandActivitiestoHelpTeachConcepts.New
York:ScholasticProfessional.NationalCenterforResponsetoIntervention.(2016).STARReading.Washington,DC:American
InstitutesforResearch.Accessed4/28/2016athttp://www.rti4success.org/star-reading.
NationalReadingPanel.(2000).ReportoftheNationalReadingPanel:Teachingchildrentoread.Reportofthesubgroups.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,NationalInstitutesofHealth.
Oczkus,L.(2010).ReciprocalTeachingatWork:PowerfulStrategiesandLessonsforImproving
ReadingComprehension.Newark,DE:InternationalReadingAssociation.Paige,D.D.,Magpuri-Lavell,T.,Rasinski,T.V,&Smith,G.(2013).Interpretingtherelationships
amongprosody,automaticity,accuracy,andsilentreadingcomprehensioninsecondarystudents.JournalofLiteracyResearch,46(2),123-156.
Paige,D.D.,Rasinski,T.V.,&Magpuri-Lavell,T.(2012).Isfluent,expressivereadingimportantforhighschoolreaders?JournalofAdolescent&AdultLiteracy,56(1),67–76.
Rasinski,T.V.(1989).Fluencyforeveryone:Incorporatingfluencyintheclassroom.TheReadingTeacher,42,690–693.
Rasinski,T.V.(2010).TheFluentReader:OralandSilentReadingStrategiesforBuildingWordRecognition,Fluency,andComprehension.NewYork,NY:Scholastic.
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH 13
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue2,2017,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
Rasinski,T.V.(2012).Whyreadingfluencyshouldbehot.TheReadingTeacher,65,516-522.
Rasinski,T.,Padak,N.,McKeon,C.,Krug,-Wilfong,L.,Friedauer,J.,&Heim,P.(2005).IsReadingFluencyaKeyforSuccessfulHighSchoolReading?JournalofAdolescentandAdultLiteracy,49,22-27.
Rasinski,T.V.,Padak,N.D.,Linek,W.L.,&Sturtevant,E.(1994).Effectsoffluencydevelopmentonurbansecond-gradereaders.JournalofEducationalResearch,87,158–165.
Rasinski,T.V.,Reutzel,C.R.,Chard,D.&Linan-Thompson,S.(2011).ReadingFluency.InM.L.Kamil,P.D.Pearson,B.Moje,&P.Afflerbach.(Eds),HandbookofReadingResearch,VolumeIV(pp.286-319).NewYork:Routledge.
RenaissanceLearning.(2016).STARReading.WisconsinRapids,WI:RenaissanceLearning.
Accessed4/28/2016athttp://www.renaissance.com/Products/Star-Assessments/Star-Reading.
Scholastic.(2004).PerfectPoemswithStrategiesforBuildingFluency:Grades3–4.NewYork,NY:
Scholastic.Valencia,S.W.,&Buly,M.R.(2004).Behindtestscores:Whatstrugglingreadersreallyneed.The
ReadingTeacher,57,520-531.