Teaching Fluency FAQs

  • 27 July, 2024
  • 11 Comments

Blast from the Past: This blog entry first appeared on September 29, 2009 and was reposted on July 27, 2024. Usually, I repost a blog when I get a bunch of questions on a topic that I’ve previously written about or when there is some public event that renews its relevance. This is something completely different. It has been quite a while since anyone has asked any questions about fluency instruction. One might assume that means fluency is now being widely and well taught in schools. I have reason to believe that not to be the case. I suspect that with all the current “science of reading” promotion of phonics instruction and the commensurate push back against that on behalf of reading comprehension, that fluency instruction is the last thing on many teachers’ minds. Years ago, Dick Allington called out teachers for neglecting fluency, and we might again be in that situation. I’ve been wanting to write about fluency again for some time, so I decided to update and repost this blog entry. Hope it is a helpful reminder about something very important.


RELATED: What Do We Do With Above Grade Readers?

Here is an FAQ on teaching oral reading fluency:

Do all students need work with fluency? 

For the most part, yes. However, fluency is a relatively constrained reading skill. That means students eventually reach a peak level of fluency, at which point instruction can be discontinued. The higher the grade level you teach, the more likely you’ll have some students who won’t need any additional fluency instruction. If you teach in the elementary grades, it is not likely that you’ll have many students who can read high school level texts with high accuracy, and a reading speed of 150-175 words per minute. If you do, those kids can skip the fluency practice.

What is the point of fluency instruction?

The earliest thinking on fluency came from Carol Chomsky. Her notion was that students who had learned decoding, needed to learn how to implement this knowledge when reading text. This argues for providing both explicit phonics instruction, along with fluency practice. Jay Samuels believed that the point of this instruction was to develop automaticity – the ability to carry out a task successfully without conscious attention, which led to his recommendation for repeated reading, since repetition can lead to that level of proficiency. Later, Joe Torgesen, who was looking at fluency with younger readers and lower performing readers, concluded that the students were mainly memorizing particular words, so he argued for the use of texts with lots of vocabulary repetition across texts. Other scholars have noted the important role that fluency practice plays in the development of prosody or expression – meaning that once student can read the words in text successfully they must make it sound like text, which is entirely a comprehension issue. 

What kinds of teaching improves fluency?

The National Reading Panel concluded that oral reading practice with feedback and repetition was valuable in developing fluency. Providing some kind of guidance in how to parse or chunk sentences – where to pause when reading so the words are grouped appropriately is beneficial, too. 

Our students are getting low scores in reading comprehension. Why aren’t we focusing on that instead of fluency?

Low comprehension scores can mean many things. Perhaps, they signal problems with language (e.g., lousy vocabulary, syntax, cohesion, discourse structure), limited prior knowledge, or just a lack of ability to focus on the right kinds of information. If kids do have those problems, then fluency work is not likely to help. But quite often, the reason for low comprehension is that the students can’t read the text well. In other words, if you want higher comprehension, fluency work can be a powerful road to get there.

How much fluency teaching are we expected to provide?

There is no research that I am aware of that establishes the most effective amount of fluency instruction. However, looking at the studies that have found such practice to improve reading achievement (there are several), I would shoot for about 30 minutes per day – in other words, 25% of the ELA time – but the more fluent my students, the less time I would likely spend.

How do I keep from embarrassing my low readers?

Fluency work is a practice activity, not much different from basketball players shooting free throws prior to a big game. Practice usually isn’t embarrassing, if everyone knows it’s practice. Most students enjoy fluency work. It’s active, involving, and they can see their own improvement. Embarrassment is the result of performance activities like round robin reading, where one student reads, and everyone follows along. Paired situations are much better if they don’t single anyone out. I prefer paired reading with the teacher moving among the groups to monitor progress and to provide essential guidance to both the reader and the listener. It also helps to talk to the class at the very beginning to make sure that they understand the purpose of this practice, and what to expect.

How do I pair the kids?

Don’t make a big deal out of pairing up, as this can be a real time waster. One guideline is to make sure that the students who are working together on a given day are using the same book. That’s easy in most classrooms. A second rule is not to pair the same kids all the time; they differ in their ability to give feedback, so share the wealth. My favorite take on this comes from a teacher who had two class lists and she rolled them into concentric “wheels.” That allowed her to adjust the wheels each day, so that each child had a different partner every day. Very cool.

What kind of texts should we use for fluency?

Many teachers like to select special texts for this work, such as poetry. However, we really want students to become fluent with prose, so practice with prose materials is essential, too. Any material that you are using in class for reading comprehension or in a content subject such as social studies or science are ideal. Remember we are trying to enable students to read these kinds of texts, so having practice with those, makes sense.

I've been told the texts should be easy reading?

Research says the opposite. In repeated oral reading activities, it is more productive to work with texts that are challenging--even frustration level. It takes more rereading, of course, but kids learn more from such practice and are more likely to make progress.

Doesn’t silent reading improve fluency?

Silent reading can contribute to fluency improvement. Kids who read a lot tend to be fluent. Unfortunately, teachers can only be certain if students are fluent by listening to them read. The same can be said for their ability to evaluate the progress and effort students are making. Silent reading can only contribute to progress when students are really reading, and not just looking at pictures, skimming, skipping over unknown words, and turning pages. I insist upon silent reading (in grades 2 and up) for comprehension, and oral reading for fluency work.

How do I know that fluency activities such as paired reading or chunking work?

Nothing works automatically, you make it work. Research studies indicate that the techniques now recommended for teaching fluency have been made to work successfully with a broad range of students. Fluency work will improve students’ ability with the texts they are practicing with, and over time, this ability transfers to the reading of other texts.

I work with very young children. Do you recommend fluency work for them?

When children are first getting started with real reading, you want them to be somewhat disfluent. That is, you want the reading to go slowly enough that each word stands out on its own. Fingerpoint reading is the starting point. However, once students begin to read, the fluency goal is the same as with older children.

When you observe in classes, what are the biggest problems that you see with fluency instruction?

The biggest problem is that teachers often fail to teach fluency at all, and students fall further and further behind as the texts get harder. Another problem is the reliance on round robin reading, which is a real time waster compared with paired reading. Finally, even when teachers do have students work on fluency, there often is little or no repetition, so the students do not necessarily become fluent (they just read the material aloud and then move on).

How much rereading makes sense?

There have been two schools of thought on this. Some researchers specify a specific number of readings, and some specify a target level of performance with students reading the text repeatedly – however many times it takes – until they achieve it. The research these days seems to favor those who argue for no more than three readings. Students may not be perfect by that point, but they will have made the major amount of improvement that they are likely to see. Given that, move on to another text.


READ MORE: Shanahan on Literacy Blogs

LISTEN TO MORE: Shanahan On Literacy Podcast 

Comments

See what others have to say about this topic.

L.J. Koning Jul 27, 2024 03:40 PM

I read that if children can read 150-175 words per minute, it is advised not to pay attention to reading fluency. The question is what that advice is based on. Usually, reading speed is based on a certain percentage value. Burns and Good determined in 2002 and 2010 that 1 word per second is fast enough. I presented the results of my PhD study at the SSSR conference in Copenhagen. The question was not how fast children can read at most, but I answered the question of what reading speed is minimally required so that reading comprehension is not hindered. In the middle of grade 4, that is (just as Burns and Good determined) approximately 1 word per second. (more precisely a score of 178 on 3 test cards that the children were allowed to read for 1 minute = a total of 180 seconds). That means that the requirements of 150-175 are too high. You can stop earlier. Children must have achieved that score of at least 178 twice. They are not allowed to read too many words incorrectly and to achieve a certain minimum score per card. There are standards for the WRC and the score per card.

Mickey Rottinghaus Jul 27, 2024 04:04 PM

When teaching reading to a small group, I provide an introduction of the overall gist of the piece, preview any unusual or unfamiliar vocabulary and ask them to read the text in full on the the first day. On Day Two I might ask them to re-engage with the text with a singular purpose in mind, say to consider character motivations, in order to discuss the text. On Day Three I would present them with some comprehension probes to respond to in writing.

When using Paired Reading, I select texts that can be read in about 5 minutes. Reader One starts each sentence, looking for natural breaks (commas) in longer sentences. Reader Two, is reading along silently. When Reader One stops, Reader Two finishes the sentence. After the text has been read once, the roles are reversed and it's read again. This accomplishes a number of things: Reader Two has to have eyes on the page in order to pick up where Reader One left off. Both Readers will become more aware of punctuation.

Pott Butler Jul 27, 2024 04:07 PM

How helpful do you think children trying a variety of ‘voices’ for each repeated reading is eg whispered, sung, someone who is feeling irritable?

Timothy Shanahan Jul 27, 2024 04:37 PM

L. J. -- The notion that students should be able to read at that level of fluency is based on logical reasoning. That is about the peak of how fast adults normally read (indeed, it is possible to read faster), but typical reading is about 150-175 words per minute). Basically, if one can read as fast and accurately as an average reader, then it is unlikely that fluency is causing them any problem.

Determining how fluent someone needs to be in one minute of reading is not likely to be a good description of the degree of fluency required to read the way skilled readers read. Set up your computer to allow subjects to view text at the rate you have determined to be the appropriate one and have them read the text for an hour. I think you will discover some serious problems with that level of fluency. (Those one minute reads are a serious problem on the other end of the equation too -- being able to comprehend a book chapter is much different than being able to comprehend a 100 word passage).

Tim

Timothy Shanahan Jul 27, 2024 04:39 PM

Pott-
I don't think there is any need for voices. It can be fun, of course, but I don't think it is the point of teaching fluency for reading.

tim

Lauren Jul 27, 2024 05:04 PM

I have had students who get very nervous reading. I have observed things like gulping air, slurring words together, ignoring punctuation, and reading too fast. I don't think these students are comprehending what they read either. I have used phrased reading with success with these students, and repeated reading helps. Do you have any suggestions to lower the affective filter with these students. I know that when anyone is anxious, they will tend to be less able to think clearly.

Timothy Shanahan Jul 27, 2024 05:29 PM

Lauren--
That's why I like supervised paired reading so much... with a dozen kids reading at the same time and everybody doing it, the nervousness comes down dramatically.

tim

Dr. Bill Conrad Jul 27, 2024 06:45 PM

You identify a universal pathology that afflicts both the teaching of math and reading. Teachers pick and choose those critical elements to teach and emphasize as they see fit. Many do not have the big picture of how the essential elements of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, and writing work together to promote student literacy.

A lot of this pathology can be attributed to the colleges of education who fail to take the science of reading seriously and approach the teaching of reading as an eclectic stew of disjointed activities that teachers are free to adopt or not!

This is no way to run a profession!

High standards of curricula, aligned professional practices, and assessments must be adhered to. The teaching of reading must become more scientific and less alchemistic.

You are to be applauded for consistently upholding and supporting an evidenced-based approach to teaching reading!

More education leaders need to follow your example.

Or else, we will continue to be bozos on the bus surrounded by illiterate students!

Jane Jul 28, 2024 04:53 PM

Well, kids need voice to practice prosody and tone, inflection. Also students enjoy doing reader theater pieces. My favorite book that I turned into a Reader’s Theater is Pierre by Maurice Sendak. The students love saying loudly, I don’t care! I love it with third graders that it teaches a moral and the word prologue. It excites them to read for fun. We also have acted it out.
They love practicing voice changes and discussing what would be the best voice for the piece to come alive.

L.J. Koning Jul 28, 2024 05:08 PM

You state that your pace of 150-175 is based on logical reasoning. It is better to base it on empirical research. Why do you speak in terms of what adults read MAXIMUM. Maximum is not important. What is important is what children should be able to read at a minimum pace so that reading comprehension is not hindered. You state that if a child reads approximately 150-175 words per minute, then it is unlikely that the pace will cause them problems. That is correct, but it is not necessary to adhere to that criterion. Slower speed is also sufficient. If I may also provide an opinion based on logical reasoning: what does someone do at the reading pace you mentioned if this reader does not understand the text. Then the reader rereads at a slower pace. That is an automatic and meaningful reaction.
You state that determining how fast someone should be able to read in 1 minute is not a good description of the degree of fluency. We did not do that either. We used a word test consisting of three cards with words of three difficulty levels. That is three minutes. The minimum required speed can only be determined in relation to reading comprehension. So we also administered reading comprehension tests. Through regression analysis we know that a minimum of 1 word per second does not hinder reading comprehension. You propose to set the computer to 1 word per second and that we will then discover problems. That is not what it is about. Then we could slow down certain children. We were concerned with the question of what is sufficient fluency. Everyone speaks in terms of: reading fluency must be sufficient. What is sufficient then? You can determine that among other things on the basis of reading tests and reading comprehension tests, using regression analysis. Then it turns out, as Burns and Good also determined, that 1 word per second is fast enough in the middle of grade 4.

Timothy Shanahan Jul 28, 2024 06:34 PM

L. J.--
So, you believe that fact that because a fourth-grader can read at 60 wcpm for 3 1-minute reads that empirically proves that all students by the time they leave high school should be reading at 60 wcpm. That ignores the differences between text levels (longer phrases and clauses increases the need for greater speed), that such slow reading can increase memory load, and the motivational issues.
I'd rather get students to the average levels of accuracy/speed for their age/grade level, than the minimal amount of speed in an artificially short amount of time that allowed 1-minute of comprehension (I know it is an average of 3 1-minutes reads),

tim

What Are your thoughts?

Leave me a comment and I would like to have a discussion with you!

Comment *
Name*
Email*
Website
Comments

Teaching Fluency FAQs

11 comments

One of the world’s premier literacy educators.

He studies reading and writing across all ages and abilities. Feel free to contact him.