Reading Fluency: A Brief History, the Importance of Supporting

Reading Fluency: A Brief History, the Importance of Supporting Processes,

and the Role of Assessment

Dr. David D. Paige

Northern Illinois University

July 30, 2020

While reading fluency has been extensively studied as an independent reading process, it

is better thought of as an outcome of multiple, lower-level reading skills that when functioning in

a synchronous and efficient manner, results in smooth, expressive reading that’s critical to

understanding text. This review begins by defining reading fluency, and then provides a brief

history of how the conceptualization of reading fluency has changed over the past two centuries.

It then discusses the important reading processes that are responsible for fluent reading before

reviewing several studies that emphasize the importance of reading fluency to making meaning

of text. The review concludes with a rationale for why reading fluency, and the foundational

processes that lead to fluent reading, must be regularly assessed in students.

Defining Fluency

Reading fluency has been through multiple conceptualizations. These include the rapid

reading of individual words, reading words correctly, the speed at which one can read connected

text, and reading with expression. Fluent reading is now conceptualized by reading scholars as a

construct composed of three facets, or indicators. These include 1) the rate of one’s reading, 2)

the accuracy at which words are pronounced, and 3) the prosody (meaning expression) in one’s

voice that brings a text to life

. While the indicators are individually identified, they work

interactively to produce fluent reading. For example, the rate or pace with which one reads often

simulates, to a loose extent, the pace of spoken language.

Correctly pronouncing individual words is important to

maintaining a smooth rate, otherwise the reader must stop to

analyze and determine how to say the word which breaks the

smoothness of the reading. As in speech, prosody is important

to understanding the various interpretational nuances of the

text, as it is in a conversation. Imagine speaking with someone

who talks in a flat, monotone voice. Much interpretation would be lost and frankly, interest in the

conversation would quickly wane. So while fluency can be defined as three distinct indicators,

they work interactively with each other to produce smooth reading that is both pleasant to listen

to and as with speech, aids understanding.

Fluency has most often been interpreted by researchers as a measurement metric called

words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) or correct-words-per-minute (CWPM) which is calculated as

the total number of words read (reading rate) minus reading miscues (mispronounced words,

words not read, words inserted, and skipped words) over the course of one minute. The problem

with this definition is the exclusion of prosody, the third indicator of reading. To facilitate clear

understanding among the reading community, particularly teachers, the term accumaticity has

Reading fluency is defined by

reading rate, word identification

accuracy, and prosody

(expression).

been recently introduced to refer to the measurement metric of words-correct-per-minute

while

fluency refers to all three indicators.

Because reading fluency has experienced a variety of interpretations as to its role and

importance in reading that continues to evolve today, a brief overview of how fluency has been

viewed will provide perspective.

A Brief History

Reading instruction in early America emphasized the oral reading of text

. Several book

series, such as the McGuffey’s Eclectic Reading Series (1853)

, were popular as resources for

learning to read. The following quotation from the fifth edition positions the role of articulation

within fluent reading:

The first step to be taken by one who desires to become a good reader or speaker, is to

acquire a habit of distinct articulation. Without this, the finest voice, the utmost propriety of

inflection, and all the graces of articulation, fail to please. (p. 13).

Articulation, as used in McGuffey’s, refers to the clear accentuation of words by the

reader. Oftentimes, oral reading occurred in public spaces (churches, lecture halls, etc.) without

the aid of amplifying devices, necessitating understandable, fluent reading. The McGuffey’s

reader goes on to mention what would be considered the qualities of reading fluency today – a

reading rate that loosely simulated oral conversation, accurate word pronunciation, and the

appropriate use of prosody, all meant to keep listeners engaged in the reading.

By the early twentieth century an increasing number of children were enrolled in formal

education. As reading was now more likely to occur silently, the emphasis on oral reading

declined, although it was still used as a way to assess a

student’s reading progress

. About this time the

psychologist Edmund B. Huey (1908)

published The

Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, the first book to

review the science of reading. In the late nineteenth

century psychologists had invented the first machines to

track one’s eyes while reading that provided a gateway

into the cognitive processing of text. Research in this field

led to new insights about reading, some of which resulted

in faulty conclusions (e.g., that all readers read words as a

single “whole”) while others remain basically correct today. These early psychologists

discovered that even good readers do not smoothly move their eyes across the text, but rather,

eyes move both left and right as the reader advances across a sentence.

The middle of the twentieth century brought additional changes to reading instruction. A

prominent textbook on the teaching of reading had been authored by Emmett Betts (1950)

, a

professor of reading at Temple University and formerly Pennsylvania State College. Reading

was now conceptualized as a facet of language, an idea that is fundamental to today’s view of

literacy

. While Betts acknowledged that most reading occurred silently, oral reading was

perceived as having an important place in the reading program. Critical thinking was encouraged

in students as a way to evaluate the author’s message in light of the student’s background

knowledge. Based on insights from a dissertation conducted by Killgallon (1942)

, Betts

recommended what is still considered today, the golden rule for instructional text. Although

Killgallon did not construct text complexity guidelines, Betts deemed any text where the student

could not correctly pronounce at least 90% of the words as too difficult to read and to be avoided

(frustration level). Texts were considered instructionally appropriate (to be read in conjunction

with a teacher) if the words were read with 95% accuracy, while texts where word identification

accuracy equaled 99% or better were judged appropriate for independent reading. Shanahan

researched Killgallon’s dissertation and found no empirical evidence to support these

recommendations. None the less, these percentages are perhaps the most enduring rules (74 years

running to date) in reading education despite research debunking them

10,11, 12

. The instructional

problem with Betts’ rule is that many teachers are leery of allowing students to read text that is

above their instructional level. Such decisions ignore the power of student interest and

motivation and artificially constrain the scaffolding of text complexity that limits the reader’s

experience with the texts needed to develop college- and career-ready reading skills. Also, at risk

is the reader’s growth of core or global knowledge that is important to comprehension.

Validation of Fluency Interventions

In the late 1970’s and early 80’s, fluent reading as an instructional goal had become

largely ignored. In a seminal article in 1983, Allington

noted that while students often lacked

fluent reading, it was rarely addressed with fluency instruction, rather, teachers tended to focus

on improvement of word automaticity. While word automaticity is important to fluent reading,

students must still learn to read words in connected text and

become familiar with syntax that tends to become increasingly

sophisticated as text complexity increases across grades.

To unbundle the interaction between word automaticity

and fluency, Dahl and Samuels

conducted a study in 1973 to

improve reading fluency where one group of students practiced

automaticity at the word level while the other engaged in reading fluency practice with

connected text. Students in the fluency development group showed significant improvement

beyond those who worked solely on word automaticity. Two seminal studies, one by Chomsky

in 1978 and a second by Samuels

in 1983, examined the efficacy of repeated readings to

improve reading fluency. In a repeated reading strategy, students read a short text of 100 to 200

words four times or so over several days. Readings are conducted in the company of a teacher or

more knowledgeable reader to assist with difficult word pronunciations. The two studies

established that practice using repeated readings decreased word mispronunciations and

improved reading rate, resulting in improved reading fluency. Additionally, comprehension

improved as students focused less of their attention on word decoding and more on creating

meaning from the text. The significance of these and other studies is that when sufficient

underlying reading skills are in place, reading fluency can be improved through assisted reading

practice. For example, Lee and Yoon

conducted a meta-analysis of 34 studies where repeated

Reading fluency has been largely

neglected.

Richard Allington, 1983

reading was used as an instructional strategy for students with reading disabilities. The authors

found that the strategy resulted in significant fluency improvement with a moderate effect size =

0.59, the interpretation of which would equate to a nearly 9-point increase on a standardized test.

In an earlier study, Therrien

analyzed 16 studies and computed effect sizes of 0.50 for reading

fluency (moderate) and 0.25 (small) for comprehension. In 2000, the National Reading Panel

identified 98 studies that used repeated reading as a method to improve oral reading fluency. The

study found an overall effect size of 0.41 (moderate size), providing the empirical evidence for

the Panel to recommend repeated reading as an effective fluency improvement strategy.

In 1986, Stanovich

further raised the profile of reading fluency by showing that the

extent to which a student was a fluent reader was related to the volume of words the student read.

The idea was that students who acquired reading fluency engaged in significantly more reading

that produced efficacious, educational results. Using estimates of

reading volume from Nagy

, Stanovich argued that while a struggling

middle school reader may read only 100,000 words in a year, an

average reader is likely to read 10 times that many. The difference in

reading volume leads to large differences in vocabulary exposure and

in the construction of global knowledge, both key to understanding

text

. In a study of middle school students by Paige and Smith

, the

authors found that reading rate mediates the relationship between

vocabulary and comprehension. The authors found that a reading rate of 127 words-per-minute

differentiated students into low- and high-rate groups with mean reading rates of 104.6 and 156.5

respectively. Students in the low-rate group knew 32% fewer words on a measure of academic

vocabulary and had lower reading comprehension than those with rates exceeding 127.

Unfortunately, disfluent readers are more likely to attribute their poor reading to poor

ability, and are less likely to exhibit the task persistence that leads to improved academic results.

The rationale becomes that since I’m not good at this, why should I put in much effort? In short,

the academic proposition that hard work will result in desirable outcomes becomes increasingly

untenable for many students who struggle with fluent reading.

Oddly, despite the recommendations of the National Reading Panel fluency instruction at

the start of the 21st century had failed to become a staple of classroom instruction across the

country. While the reasons for this are likely several, it is thought among some that poor teacher

knowledge of the nature and role of reading fluency is to blame. Also, and perhaps more

importantly, the emphasis on improving state-wide reading scores has turned the focus of reading

instruction away from the foundational skills that result in fluent reading. In place of the

understanding that reading comprehension stands on the shoulders of fluent reading, instruction

in many schools has focused on raising test scores. Predictably, these efforts have not been

successful as NAEP scores continue to show stagnant to very slow improvement

The words a student

learns is affected by how

much they read and

hence, their reading

fluency.

From Fluency to Comprehension

Whether reading aloud or silently, fluent reading is important as it allows the reader to

focus their mental attention on understanding the text rather than on pronouncing the

words

25,26,27

. Reading theorists have suggested that fluency occurs when the numerous reading

processes work smoothly in a synchronized manner

28,29

. For decades, empirical studies have

shown a moderate correlation between reading

fluency and comprehension, however, several

recent studies suggest a causal

connection

30,31,32,33

. While many of these authors

have found reading rate to be the strongest

predictor of comprehension, research has emerged showing prosody to independently predict

reading comprehension that is either in lieu of, or in addition to, that of rate

34,35,36,37

. While some

evidence exists that reading prosody lags decoding in development

, reading prosody appears to

improve comprehension because it allows the reader to imbue text with speech-like

characteristics that increases its understandability. Fluent reading is generally thought to account

for one-quarter to one-half or more of the differences in reading comprehension. For readers who

struggle with fluent reading, about half of the difference is attributable to reading fluency while it

is near one-quarter for those with adequate fluency.

To summarize, fluent reading is dependent on efficient, integrated, lower-level reading

processes including phonemic awareness and knowledge of letter-sound correspondences that

resulst, through practice, in automatic word recognition. When these processes are in place

students have a much greater likelihood of possessing the decoding skills necessary to bootstrap

their word reading that facilitates fluent reading

Foundational Skills and State Reading Achievement

In 2018 Paige and colleagues

published the first study linking foundational skills

(decoding and fluent reading) to reading achievement on standardized, state reading assessments.

The authors gathered measures on 1,064 end-of-third-grade students attending 73 schools in a

metropolitan school district. Students were measured on letter-sound understanding (phonics)

and grade-level reading fluency. These measures were equally weighted and then aggregated into

a reading composite score. Students were then coded as scoring proficient or not on the

composite measure. Results showed that students attaining proficient status on the reading

composite had a 70% chance of scoring proficient or better on the state reading assessment while

those who were less-than-proficient on the composite had a 20% chance of state proficiency.

This study shows clearly that for third-grade students,

attainment of grade-level, foundational reading skills is

critical to attaining state reading proficiency.

A recent study by Wang and colleagues

of 10,000,

fifth- to tenth-grade students found that to gain

understanding from text, minimum text decoding skills

must be in place, a finding consistent with the results

Fluency accounts for 25% to over 50% of the

difference in reading comprehension.

70% or 20%?

Students with grade-appropriate

foundational reading skills had a 70%

chance of scoring proficient on the state

reading achievement test while those

without had a 20% chance.

from previous authors. However, the authors also found that students not meeting a minimum

decoding threshold experienced comprehension levels that were one-sixth that of students above

the threshold. Additionally, this same condition persisted across all grades meaning students with

poor decoding skills never experienced improved reading comprehension. This study, and that

from Paige et al., highlight the importance of the reading processes necessary for fluent reading,

which we now discuss.

Reading Processes Necessary for Fluent Reading

Phonemic Awareness and Orthographic Mapping

Phonological awareness refers to the ability to hear and manipulate the sounds of

language at the word, syllable, and phoneme level. A phoneme is the smallest speech sound in a

language of which English has 44. While it is not necessary to have phonemic awareness to

acquire speech, it is necessary for learning to connect letters to speech sounds

42,43

. This

fundamental process leads to the eventual learning of thousands of words recognized on sight

that forms the foundation of fluent reading

Ehri’s orthographic mapping theory

explains how students come to instantly recognize

the tens of thousands of words that are critical to reading fluency. The word orthographic simply

refers to the spelling of a word. The orthographic mapping theory hypothesizes that early readers

use their knowledge of the sounds associated with written words and word-parts to anchor word

spellings in memory. While phonemes are associated with speech, an alphabetic language such

as English represents those phonemes using individual letters and letter combinations. Of course,

humans began speaking long before the invention of writing

systems meaning such systems were fitted to represent speech, a

remarkable innovation. While some English letters such as /t/

represent a single phoneme, other letters such as /a/ represent two

(a long or short /a/), while still other phonemes are made with

letter combinations (such as /th/ in the word /the/). Some letter

combinations can represent more than one phoneme depending

on neighboring letters or sometimes even surrounding words (e.g., /ea/ in neat or near). As is

evident from these examples, there often is not a one-to-one correspondence between a letter

name and a phoneme (think of the phonemes in /w/!). Additionally, when young children learn to

speak, they have no need for knowledge of the phonemes within words as they learn to

pronounce the word in its entirety. However, the challenge in learning to decode printed words is

that children must learn to connect the constituent phonemes to letters and their combinations,

what is called sound-to-letter correspondence. In other words, they must develop phonological

analysis skills at the phoneme level. Students without effective phonemic awareness will likely

not possess the necessary analysis skills to adequately decode words and are more likely to

struggle with proficient reading as they progress through school

44,45

. In a study of middle school

students, Paige

found that differences in phonemic awareness accounted for moderate to large

decoding and word reading differences in students that were attributable to poor reading fluency

and comprehension.

Words are anchored in long-

term memory by their sounds

(phonemes).

In sum, the orthographic mapping theory evolved from much research finding that good

readers do not visually recall words from memory based on their spelling. Rather, they recall the

spelling of words based on the sounds represented by their spelling. If readers did in fact visually

memorize word pronunciations based on spelling, it would require the typical college reader to

have memorized some 50,000 words. Although it is not completely adequate, this reinforces the

need to ensure that young readers develop the requisite phonemic awareness skills necessary for

word learning.

Letter-Sound Understanding

Developing the ability to hear and isolate phonemes within words, while critical, is also

insufficient for fast and accurate word recognition

. To become a successful reader, the student

must also gain understanding of the pronunciations of the letter-sound combinations within

words, what is called letter-sound correspondence. For many children, explicit instruction is

necessary to learn the dozens of letter-sound correspondences necessary to unlock word

pronunciations

48,49,50,51

. The seminal work of Read

was the first to show that letter-sound

learning unfolds in a predictable manner and is reflected in the way a child connects sounds and

letters to spell words. Later studies identified that sound-to-spelling development takes place

across four letter-features stages based on the learner’s letter, phonemic awareness, and letter-

sound development

53,54,55,56

. While letter-sound understanding is important to reading acquisition

and eventual reading achievement, Bear

57,58

found that a student’s developmental letter-feature

stage is strongly associated with the complexity of text that can be read fluently. This means that

for children with letter-sound understanding that has stalled or is insufficiently developed, the

prospect of becoming a proficient reader is unlikely as the Wang et al.

study revealed.

Word Automaticity

Fluent reading is largely dependent on the number of words a student can instantly

pronounce upon sight

59,60,61

. In 1974, LaBerge and Samuels

published their seminal theory of

automaticity in reading. A word is considered to be automatic when it can be read while the

reader’s attention is directed to something else. In other words, rather than using one’s mental

attention to purposively decode (pronounce) a word, the word has been learned to the point that

access occurs in a single-step, unitary process on a nearly instant basis (about 25 milliseconds).

Any word that is instantly recognizable by memory is considered a sight-word. The authors

hypothesize that through repeated encounters with a non-automatic word, neurological

connections in the brain strengthen to the point where the word is finally recognized instantly by

the reader.

Logan (1988)

on the other hand, conceptualizes automaticity not as a strengthening

process, but as a memory phenomenon. He argues that an

encounter with a word lays down a memory trace in the

brain. Each successive encounter with the word results in

a subsequent trace, each faster than the one before.

Automaticity occurs when the reader can correctly

pronounce the word before they can consciously apply

Students with an inadequate inventory

of words recognized automatically are

unlikely to become fluent readers.

decoding strategies. The implication of both theories is that automaticity occurs on a word-by-

word basis. Additionally, it is successful word recognition that unlocks in the reader’s lexical

memory any meaning associated with a word. This is an important implication that should be

noted. Although a reader may know the meaning of a word when used in conversation, the

meaning remains inaccessible if its textual representation cannot be pronounced. Stated more

simply, if the written word is not correctly pronounced its’ meaning remains unknown. A typical

literate individual is likely able to read, spell, and write 50,000 to 70,000 words

. Memorizing

the pronunciation of this many written words is an untenable proposition.

Fluency Assessment

Because of its importance to academic success, fluency assessment should take place

across the elementary and middle school grades to be

certain students are attaining the ability to read the

increasingly complex texts necessary for college- and

career-ready reading achievement. As mentioned at the

beginning of this overview, fluent reading reflects the

extent to which a student has acquired the reading

processes that underpin fluent reading. This means, for

example, that an assessment of the reading fluency of a fifth-grade student may determine it to

be less than adequate. While the identification of the student as disfluent is important, it does not

determine why the student is struggling. To get to the root cause, additional assessments

involving phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, and word- and pseudoword reading

are necessary. This brings us to the idea that reading across K-12 reflects growth in reading

processes that occurs across a developmental trajectory. This has important ramifications for

reading assessment and ensuring that the processes critical to fluent reading are in place.

Kindergarten Through Third-Grade

To ensure fluent reading growth, assessment of the following reading processes must take

place: 1) letter naming; 2) phonological/phonemic awareness; 3) letter-sound correspondence; 4)

word reading; and 5) reading fluency.

Letter Naming:

By the middle of kindergarten students must have instant recognition of the 26 letters of

the alphabet in both upper- and lower-case. Letter recognition assessment allows the teacher to

know which letters have been learned and which required additional, focused instruction.

Phonological/Phonemic Awareness:

Students must be able to hear and manipulate syllables, distinguish onsets and rimes, and

recognize and be able to manipulate phonemes. By the end of first-grade, phonemic awareness

skills should enable students to form new words through the identification (isolation) and

replacement of a phoneme to form a new word. At the end of second-grade some students will

have fully developed phonemic awareness skills that have become automatic. An example is

asking what word is made when the /k/ sound at the end of pack is replaced with the /th/ sound?

A student with automatic skills will answer path within 2 seconds. While automaticity of

Fluency Assessment should occur 3

times per year across first-third grade; it

should continue 2 times/year through

middle school.

phonemic awareness is rarely assessed, not accounting for its presence can result in false-positive

results showing that a student possesses skills that are in fact, not present.

Letter-Sound Correspondence:

Letter features are acquired in a predictable sequence that is easily assessed using a

developmental spelling approach. Additionally, letter-sound correspondence and phonemic

awareness have been shown to co-develop where growth in one aids the development of the

other. For many children, letter-sound correspondence skills require explicit instruction. Children

also quickly diverge from each other in their acquisition of letter feature knowledge. For a

teacher to be certain that students are showing appropriate growth in this skill, assessment is

critical. Without this knowledge teachers are unable to reliably know how a student is

progressing, and whether or not they require additional, focused instruction.

Word Reading:

As the theory of orthographic mapping suggests, word reading growth is dependent upon

development of phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, and practice reading

connected text. Sight- and pseudo-word reading reveal whether a child is acquiring sight-words

at a sufficient pace and whether or not they are becoming automatic and adequately transferring

letter-feature knowledge to word reading. For example, a developmental spelling assessment

may show the student is adequately progressing, however, a pseudo-word test may suggest less-

than-expected development in light of their decoding knowledge. In this instance the student

should engage in more reading practice with connected text. However, in the absence of a letter-

sound correspondence assessment, a poor pseudo-word reading assessment would suggest the

student is not engaging in sufficient reading practice. However, a developmental spelling

assessment may show that the student is lagging in the critical letter-sound knowledge necessary

for decoding words and does not possess the letter-sound knowledge that is prerequisite for

automatic decoding.

Reading Fluency:

Students should regularly progress in their ability to read increasingly complex text, as

measured by Lexile. As children begin reading connected text in late kindergarten or early first-

grade, regular assessment of fluency should begin no later the middle of first-grade. Because

reading should develop quickly through third-grade, fluency assessment with prosody should

occur three times per year. In the later elementary grades through middle school, fluency should

be assessed twice a year for students who exhibits normal reading development and more

frequently if they are struggling.

In Conclusion

Reading research strongly supports fluent reading as necessary for adequate reading

achievement across the K-12 continuum. A fluent reader is more likely to benefit from both the

vocabulary acquisition that occurs through reading and the growth in global knowledge that is

one of the foundations of reading comprehension. In this article I have made a case that fluent

reading is an outcome of the efficient reading processes that lead to fast acquisition of thousands

of words that are recognized instantly on sight. I have also argued that regular assessment of

these processes is necessary until they have become adequately developed in students so as to

support word learning and fluent reading. In order to engage in the volume of reading that is

necessary to build both fluent reading and the global knowledge that undergirds comprehension,

students must be motivated to read. Acquisition of the reading processes that support and then

blossoms into fluent reading is critical in developing students motivated to engage in reading for

pleasure and learning.

References

Samuels, S.J. (2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by fluency?

Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4), 563–566.

Paige, D. D., & Magpuri-Lavell, T. (2014). Reading fluency in the middle and secondary

grades. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 83-96.

https://iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/issue/view/11

McGuffey’s Newly Revised Rhetorical Guide or Fifth Reader of The Eclectic Series (1853).

Winthrop B. Smith & Co.

Monaghan, J. E., & Barry, L. A. (1999). Writing the past: Teaching reading in colonial America

and the United States, 1640 – 1940. International Reading Association: Newark, DE.

Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. MIT Press.

Betts, E. A. (1950). Foundations of reading instruction. New York: American Book Company.

Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading &

Writing, 22, 379-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1

Killgallon, P. A. (1942). A study of relationships among certain pupil adjustments in reading

situations. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania State College.

Shanahan, T. (1983). The informal reading inventory and the instructional level: The study that

never took place. In L. Gentile, M. L., Kamil, & J. Blanchard (Eds.), Reading research

revisited, (pp. 577-580). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Shanahan, T. (2011). Rejecting instructional level theory.

https://shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/rejecting-instructional-level-theory

Powell, W. R., & Dunkeld, C. G. (1971). Validity of the IRI reading levels. Elementary

English, 48(6), 637-642.

Brown, L. T., Mohr, K. A. J., Bradley, R. W., & Barrett, T. S. (2017). The effects of dyad

reading and text difficulty on third-graders’ reading development. The Journal of

Educational Research, 111(5), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1310711

Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36(6),

556-561. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20198272

Dahl, P. R., & Samuels, S. J. (1973). A mastery based experimental program for teaching poor

readers high speed word recognition skills. Unpublished paper. University of Minnesota.

Chomsky, C. (2002). "When You Still Can't Read in Third Grade: After Decoding, What?

In S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction, (pp. 13-30).

Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.

Samuels, S. Jay. (1979). The Method of Repeated Readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403-

408. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20194790

Lee, J., & Yoon, S. Y. (2017). The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students

with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(2), 213-

224. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022219415605194

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading.

Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252-261.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F07419325040250040801

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of

the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences in individual

differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 36-407.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022057409189001-204

Nagy, W.E., & Anderson, R.C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school

English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330. https://www.jstor.org/stable/747823

Hirsch, Jr., E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge – of words and the

world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and the nation’s stagnant

comprehension scores. American Educator, Spring, 10-29.

Paige, D. D., & Smith, G. S. (2018). Academic vocabulary and reading fluency: Unlikely

bedfellows in the quest for textual meaning. Education Sciences, 8(4), 165.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040165

NAEP (2019). National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). National assessment of

educational progress reading assessment. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In M. Daneman, G. E., Mackinnon,

& T. G. Waller (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 109–

143). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Pikulski, J. T., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and comprehension.

The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.6.2

Breznitz, Z. (2006). Fluency in reading: Synchronization of processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading Ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension, Scientific Studies of

Reading, 11(4), 357-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730

Dohower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers’

fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 389-406.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/747699

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M., K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an

indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.

Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3

Kim, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Foster. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent

reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade

readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(4), 338-362.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.493964

Swanson, H. L., & O’Connor, R. (2009). The role of working memory and fluency practice on

the reading comprehension of students who are dysfluent readers. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 42(6), 548-575. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022219409338742

Whalley, K., & Hansen, J. (2006). The role of prosodic sensitivity in children’s reading

development. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 288-303.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00309.x

Valencia, S. W., Smith, A., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral

reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequent validity.

Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 270-291. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.1

Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to

reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 310-321.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310

Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T., Magpuri-Lavell, T., & Smith, G. S. (2014). Interpreting the

relationships among prosody, automaticity, accuracy and silent reading comprehension in

secondary students. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 123-156.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086296X14535170

Paige, D. D., Rupley, W. H., Smith, G. S., Rasinski, T. V., Nichols, W., & Magpuri-Lavell, T.

(2017). Is prosodic reading a strategy for comprehension? Journal for Educational

Research Online, 9(2), 245-275.

https://www.pedocs.de/frontdoor.php?source_opus=14951

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading

acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2

Paige, D. D., Smith, G. S., Rasinski, T. V., Rupley, W. H., Magpuri-Lavell, T., & Nichols, W.

D. (2018). A path analytic model linking foundational skills to Grade 3 state reading

achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 110-120.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1445609

Wang, Z., Sabitini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2018). Decoding and reading comprehension:

A test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3),

387-401. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000302

Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J., Duff, F., & Snowling, M. (2012). The causal role

of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: Combining

intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23, 572–577.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797611435921

Fox, B. & Routh, D. K. (1976). Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word-attack skills. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 68, 70-74. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-

0663.68.1.70

Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling

memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21. DOI:

1080/10888438.2013.819356

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). The

case for early reading intervention. In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading

acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (p. 243–264). Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J.,

Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner,

R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in

kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center

for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website:

http://whatworks.ed.gov.

Paige, D. D. (2020). Advanced Phonemic Awareness: Does it Matter in Adolescent

Students? [Manuscript submitted for publication]. School of Education, Northern Illinois

University.

Barron, R. (1986). Word recognition in early reading: A review of the direct and indirect

access hypothesis. Cognition, 24, 93-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90006-5

Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its

relationship to recoding. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Trieman (Eds.), Reading

acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbanm Associates, Inc.

Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: A

model of acquisition and individual differences. Issues in Education: Contributions from

Educational Psychology, 1, 1-35.

Vellutino, F. (1991). Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition: convergent findings

on theoretical foundations of code-oriented versus whole language approaches to reading

instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 437-443.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.437

Read, C. (1975). Children’s categorization of speech sounds in English. NCTE Committee on

Research Report No. 17. ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics, Arlington,

VA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED112426.pdf

Bear, D., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundations for

learning and teaching phonics, spelling, and vocabulary. Reading Teacher, 52(3), 222–

243.

Gentry, J. R. (1982). An analysis of developmental spelling in “GNYS AT WRK.” The

Reading Teacher, 36(2), 192-200.

Worthy, J., & Viise, N. M. (1996). Morphological, phonological, and orthographic differences

in between the spelling of normally achieving and children and basic literacy adults.

Reading and Writing, 8(2), 139-159.

Henderson, H. H., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal spelling

instruction through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. The Elementary School Journal,

86(3), 304-316. https://doi.org/10.1086/461451

Bear, D.R. (1989). Why beginning reading must be word-by-word. Visible Language, 23, 353–

367.

Bear, D. (1992). The prosody of oral reading and stage of word knowledge. In S. Templeton &

D.R. Bear (Eds), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations

of literacy: A memorial Festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 137–189). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Ehri, L. C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for

teaching. In R. Stainthorp and P. Tomlinson (Eds.) Learning and teaching reading.

London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II.

Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled

reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin,

131(1), 3-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3

Duff, F. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). The role of children’s phonological and semantic knowledge

in learning to read words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 504-525.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.598199

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing

in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-

0285(74)90015-2

Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review,

95(4), 492-527. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492