Wake Up Reading Wars Combatants: Fluency Instruction is Part of the Science of Reading

07 December, 2019
45 Comments

It’s been a bad week for fluency instruction.

I started getting emails questioning me on whether I supported the fluency ideas that my friend Tim Rasinski was advocating. These messages seemed to fall into two categories: those who were honestly horrified that Tim would offer something beyond what they believed to be part of the “science of reading” and those who hoped to bait me into publicly taking a rhetorical swing at Tim’s claims.

I found out Tim had been on Amplify’s Science of Reading podcast (probably why I was being contacted so much), and that he had argued for using techniques like “assisted reading” and “repeated reading” to support children’s fluency growth. Apparently, some listeners thought his recommendations to be contradictory of what Emily Hansford has labeled the “science of reading.”

Then, the International Literacy Association issued a position paper on “Children Experiencing Reading Difficulties” (Wixson, et al., 2019). This document seems to have emerged from the PBS kerfuffle from earlier this year, when some of the same scholars who produced it denied the existence of dyslexia and denigrated the concerns of parents whose kids weren’t receiving phonics instruction. This more conciliatory effort calls for a comprehensive approach to reading instruction that emphasizes phonemic awareness, phonics, reading comprehension, and writing—along with attention to language and the development of executive control. (The efforts to appease the science of reading community only go so far in this document—one can easily come away thinking that the major problem facing kids who experience reading difficulties is that they will receive too much phonics teaching or that some (unnamed) individual is promoting a “phonics only agenda.”)

Tone problems aside, I’m certainly sympathetic to efforts aimed at healing the great divides in our field, and I’ve long argued for comprehensive approaches to reading instruction myself—maintaining that such lists of instructional desiderata include approximate amounts of instruction that should be devoted to each (that way, one can more easily weed out those who seemingly support phonics, but who would spend no more than a few minutes a day on it; or those champions of writing, who may address it only two or three time per school year).

Nevertheless, I was surprised that given the substantial body of research around oral reading fluency instruction and its benefits, that it failed to the make the ILA cut in their notion of a comprehensive program of instruction. Especially given the recent research on its importance (O’Reilly, et al., 2019; Sabatini, et al., 2018), as well as the substantial case made for such teaching by the National Reading Panel (NRP) (NICHD, 2000) and in independent reviews (e.g., Kuhn & Stahl, 2002).

Essentially, the phonics-firsters and those warning us of the potential toxicity of phonics teaching both seem to have written off explicit fluency instruction. Under the circumstances, I suspect proponents of fluency teaching would like a Thanksgiving do-over… they, perhaps, have less to be thankful for than they might have thought.

Why do I support oral reading fluency instruction?

I chaired the NRP sub-panel that reviewed the research on fluency teaching, and our summary of that research concluded that such teachhing was beneficial to their reading development by a wide range of measures. Kids who received fluency instruction simply read better than those who did not. These outcomes were obtained with children in regular classrooms (Grades 1-4) and with struggling readers (Grades 1-12). Later, as director of reading for the Chicago Public Schools, I mandated that our kids get a substantial amount of fluency teaching (about 30 minutes per day), along with similar expenditures on decoding, comprehension, and writing. That recipe led to significantly higher reading achievement for our 437,000 students.

If you want to advocate for a science of reading, it seems that would require one to pay attention to the scientific research findings on various approaches to teaching reading. After all, those who promote explicit phonemic awareness and phonics instruction usually rely heavily on the research base provided by the NRP; why not use the whole report? And, likewise, for those who claim to take a comprehensive view of reading instruction, why leave out such a heavily researched element? Fluency instruction has been more thoroughly studied than the promising, but still speculative, “executive control” variables noted in the ILA document (and, those variables haven’t been shown to have as big an impact on reading progress either).

I think one of the problems with oral reading fluency is that it isn’t a pure variable. It is a mash up of decoding and comprehension—and it is developmental to boot, meaning that it’s nature changes over time.

As Professor Rasinski noted in the Amplify podcast, with the youngest children, say those in kindergarten, oral reading fluency is more about developing a concept of word—learning how speech maps onto print—than about anything that seems particularly fluency oriented. Children have to learn how print and language come together; that is, how phonemes, syllables, and words are represented on a page and what those punctuation points and white spaces are all about. Darrell Morris (e.g., 1993) has long argued that concept of word plays a critical role in early phonemic awareness development and the importance of early fingerpoint reading has clearly been demonstrated (Uhry, 2002).

Later, oral reading fluency instructions aids decoding development. Carol Chomsky (178) identified second graders who, despite high phonics knowledge, were struggling readers. She thought these kids needed some teaching that would show them how to apply their phonics skills. She engaged the kids in repeated reading activities, and they blossomed as readers. Later studies found that such teaching benefited kids without reading problems, too (NICHD, 2000).

These days we know a bit more about decoding development and what it entails. It appears that fluency instruction probably helps with those memory changes supported by decoding instruction.

As Chomsky posited, fluency work is likely most helpful at what Linnea Ehri has described as the consolidation or automaticity stages of decoding development (e.g., Ehri & Wilce, 1985). Kids aren’t memorizing sight words as much as they are developing an understanding how to use phonetic/orthographic cues in word reading. They are building the cognitive architecture that allows one to learn to respond appropriately to words on the basis of minimal exposure or experience (fast mapping), such as when kids get to the point where they appear to memorize words with no more than a single exposure (Carey & Bartlett, 1978)—or statistical learning (Seidenberg, 2018).

Joe Torgesen and colleagues decided that the major impact of repeated reading on struggling readers is that they were mastering specific words from the activity (Rashotte, 1985)—which seems reasonable, no one really knows what specifically is being stored in memory when children learn to decode.

Not surprisingly, there is a particularly strong relationship between oral reading fluency and reading comprehension during the primary grades (Sabatini, et al., 2018). However, for many students oral reading fluency practice continues to help in the consolidation of decoding skills beyond that point (O’Reilly, et al., 2019), and it also starts to morph into an activity that helps to support prosody development which is more directly implicated in reading comprehension (Breznitz, 2006). No wonder the latest ETS policy guide recommends attention to fluency as a foundational reading skill well beyond the primary grades (O’Reilly, et al., 2019).

Why teach fluency? Because at different points in a reader’s development it makes important contributions to understanding how print works, to consolidating and automizing decoding skills, and to helping readers to figure out how to go from print to prosody. But, basically, the reason I support it is because there are a substantial number of reasonably persuasive studies showing that such instruction enhances reading achievement—the only reason any instructional routine should be adopted.

One last point. I know some teachers are concerned about this emphasis on oral reading. A small bit of research shows that silent reading – when sufficiently scaffolded – can also support fluency. That makes sense, but I make sure kids get do a lot of silent reading, too, during comprehension instruction, in work with texts throughout the curriculum, and during authentic independent reading (when kids choose to read, not when teachers require such practice). Studies show oral reading fluency instruction translates to improved silent reading ability (Kuhn & Schwanenflugel, 2018). (I usually recommend 30 minutes of scaffolded partner reading, which means each student gets about 15 minutes of daily oral reading practice).

Serious efforts to improve reading achievement will, indeed, be comprehensive and based on the science of reading. Given that, oral reading fluency instruction deserves greater respect than was manifest this week. Reading war combatants: a pox on both your houses.

Comments

See what others have to say about this topic.

Kathleen Leos Dec 07, 2019 07:31 PM

AMEN

Suzanne Petree Dec 07, 2019 07:33 PM

Yes, Tim Shanahan-no discussion. Completely support your words.

Kausalai Wijekumar Dec 07, 2019 07:42 PM

Tim - another thoughtful and pragmatic piece. I wish more school leaders will read this type of dialog and not just buy into the hype.

Thera Pearce Dec 07, 2019 07:49 PM

Thanks for bringing sanity to this debate! bravo!

TheMoabof5 Dec 08, 2019 07:36 AM

Unfortunately many schools (my children have attended) focus solely on oral fluency speed and ignore nearly all other aspects of reading. That results in kids learning that guessing and skipping unknown words is better reading because it’s faster and gets praise. What’s the use of reading 100 correct words per minute if the accuracy is below 70% and the child can’t truly comprehend the details of the passage. The schools then uses such generalized comprehension questions that kids can guess those easily . They have “proof” of increase in fluency numbers but in reality the child hasn’t gained any new reading skills. They still can’t decode unknown grade level words and this negatively affects comprehension. I stopped school intervention for private tutoring using evidence based structured literacy programs All of which include fluency work AFTER the child has the skills to decode the material accurately. Its a fantastic blend of skills needed for my boys to become more skilled and fluent readers. With evidence based structured literacy my boys finally learned the most basic skills they needed to decode and read. With increased deciding skills come increased accuracy, increased fluency and better comprehension has always followed. My 12yo son went from reading at a K-1 level to a 4-5 grade level in one year. With another year of intervention he’s come close to grade level. Heavy phonics programs like Lidnamood-Bell, Barton, Sonday, Lexersice..... they do work for struggling readers. There is also the issue of low RAN which is one aspect of SLD in reading that cannot be fully remediated and it will negatively affect fluency no matter the intervention . These children will need accommodations in place so that they can keep up with grade level reading material using audio books and text to speech technology . This is crucial to their vocabulary development, their self esteem and overall academic success. With 4 dyslexic boys I’ve been in the trenches for years and have witnessed want works for not only my own children but for the children of the many parents I’ve met over the years. . I do have a daughter who learned to read with ease so I know how easily some children can learn to read. Children like my daughter, who learn to read no matter how they are taught, are the exception not the norm. Schools have been fooled to complacency by a small minority of children’s easy reading success despite poor reading programs.

Joan Sedita Dec 09, 2019 02:15 PM

Thanks for reminding everyone that fluency is an essential reading component and requires just as much attention as the other "fab five" (i.e., P.A., phonics, vocab, comp). And also for highlighting the importance of developing oral language because it forms the foundation for all reading components. I'm responding because I was a little taken aback at this line in your piece: "...phonics firsters seem to have written off explicit fluency instruction." I'm not sure who started the label "phonics firsters", but I'm disappointed that you have adopted it. In doing so, you promote an incorrect assumption that people who promote the importance of phonics instruction believe that phonics is more important than other reading components and that it therefore should be taught first, or to the exclusion of other components such as fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. I interact with a lot of reading educators and also try to stay current with much of the commentary related to this heated topic. From my perspective, almost everyone I encounter who strongly supports phonics instruction also supports explicit instruction in all reading components for beginning reading instruction. In fact, most of these folks emphasize that the "decoding" side of the Simple View of Reading includes phonemic awareness and fluency along with phonics instruction. Which is why I also disagree with your characterization that phonics supporters have forgotten about fluency. Developing automaticity for application of phonics concepts to decode words in context is part and parcel to teaching phonics. I really don't see many people who say phonics is all that's needed or that it needs to be taught first. I think a better term to replace the misnomer "phonics firsters" might be "supporters of explicit instruction of decoding skills to support comprehension". It's longer and not as provoking, but is a fairer way to describe people. I do think you are spot on to say that people who still believe that whole language is the best way to teach reading do not support evidence-based approaches to developing fluency skills. These tend to be the folks who knock oral reading practice and instead promote silent reading.

Timothy Rasinski Dec 09, 2019 05:44 PM

Thanks, Tim, for your important thoughts on this topic. I remember years ago you sharing with me the great results you had in Chicago when phonics/word study, fluency, writing and comprehension were mandated parts of the literacy curriculum. I wonder why other schools did not pick up on what you demonstrated.

In one of her comments Harriet mentioned that she “was deeply disappointed that he (me) was one of the 57 scholars who had signed the letter regarding the PBS kerfuffle.” I guess now is a good time for me to explain why I signed on to that letter.
My major concern was that the PBS program, as well as other media reports on the reading crisis, seemed to identify phonics and the sole answer to reading difficulties. I was concerned about the message it sent, especially to parents, who might then advocate for a strong phonics program for their children at the expense of the other critical SOR competencies identified by the NRP and others. As a scholar particularly interested in fluency, and knowing of its importance but lack of traction in many reading curricula, I was dismayed and disheartened by the PBS program. Why was reading fluency, as well as the other SOR competencies, not given similar weight as phonics?

This one-sidedness was/is not limited to the PBS program. Other media reports intended for the general public seem also to focus on phonics to the exclusion of fluency or other SOR competencies. For example, in the 3 reports written by Emily Hansford about the problems in reading instruction in the United States, phonics was mentioned 73 times; reading fluency was mentioned 0 times!

Don’t get me wrong, I am a strong advocate for phonics and word study. I teach courses at Kent State University on the systematic and explicit teaching of phonics; all teachers in Ohio are required to take such a course. What bothers me is that the message being sent to the public in these media broadcasts and reports is that phonics alone is the answer. And so, I signed on to the letter that expressed this concern.

As you say, Tim, advocates of the SOR need to embrace all of the science of reading. And fluency is clearly one of those scientifically validated reading competencies. Thanks again for your important and essential work on behalf of teachers, parents and children.

Harriett Dec 09, 2019 06:26 PM

I am grateful that Professor Rasinski has taken the time to explain his reasons for signing the letter, and I wish that I had taken his phonics course in my reading specialist credential program rather than the one on the 3-cueing system. I also appreciate hearing about his continued concerns. It is so important that we strive to find common ground about issues that directly affect our students.

Here's an excerpt from Emily Hanford's Hard Words https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read which refers to comments by Mark Seidenberg and tries to dispell the notion that "phonics alone is the answer." She writes:

"Phonics isn't enough

When you talk to whole language proponents, it's clear pretty quickly that the distrust of phonics instruction is motivated by a fear that reading will be reduced to rote and boring phonics drills. One of the reasons whole language flourished in the 1970s and '80s is that it rejected the idea that children should sit quietly in rows listening to a teacher direct a lesson. "In whole language, the battle was seen as, 'Are you in favor of literacy or are you in favor of skills?'" Seidenberg said.

He said no one is advocating for rote and boring lessons. But the science shows clearly that when reading instruction is organized around a defined progression of concepts about how speech is represented by print, kids become better readers. There is also widespread support in the research for the effectiveness of teacher-directed lessons as opposed to letting children discover key concepts about reading on their own.

What's also clear in the research is that phonics isn't enough. Children can learn to decode words without knowing what the words mean. To comprehend what they're reading, kids need a good vocabulary, too. That's why reading to kids and surrounding them with quality books is a good idea. The whole language proponents are right about that."

Rebecca Burns Dec 28, 2019 02:30 AM

What exactly does fluency instruction look like to you? It involves repetition, for sure, and the value of self-motivated repetition is not in question.

Self-motivated repetition is a persistent characteristic of all learning and language learning in particular (children's night rehearsal, relentless repetitions of speech routines in play, requests for repetitions of stories and songs...). No one can argue that there is no place for repetition and rehearsal in literacy development. So what is really at stake in the Reading Wars? I think it comes down to money, because it costs money to control the way teachers teach--to make them do what the experts say they "should" be doing.

Perhaps "The Science of Reading" is the "Business of 'Evidence-based' Reading Instruction". Let's see how Pearson, McGraw-Hill, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt package "Fluency Instruction" for the harried school administrator that has to ensure that x number of minutes is now spent each school year on each of the kinds of instruction that The Science of Reading or the International Reading Association recommends...

I predict attractive, durable spiral bound booklets with "leveled" reading passages printed out (only in English--no one needs to read fluently in their native language unless they are a native English speaker after all), charming stop watches for timing reader performances, and attractive charts for tracking individual growth over time. Those completed charts are direct evidence of program compliance. Or, just buy Scholastic's software + hardware iread package.

Say that something "works" or is necessary for a good academic outcome, and then it becomes "required" and then it becomes something to be accounted for, and voila--education publishing delivers the canned model of method, curriculum, assessment, and serves the needs of management when the original instructional routine required no special purchases beyond a classroom library, a talented teacher, and healthy kids.

Carol Chomsky's Repeated Reading method involved the use of tape recorder. Either she recorded the passages herself or she had lucked into an early audio book. Back in the 1970's (when I was training to be an English teacher), using audio recordings to support students' reading comprehension was controversial--many thought it weakened students' motivation (!) and skills (!!). At least that part of the war is long gone. So here is the method Chomsky used, quoted from wikipedia, citing Margalit Fox's obituary of Chomsky in the NYT:

"...children would read a text silently while a recording of the text was played. The child would repeat the process until the text could be read fluently without the tape."

A text, read repeatedly, silently, along with a recording of the text. Teachers and students selecting appropriate texts together, in appropriate languages at appropriate levels.

What could happen if the experts refused to endorse any canned curriculum products? What if the dollars that routinely go into purchases of reading curricula went to teachers to enhance their knowledge of language and literacy development?

load all comments

What Are your thoughts?

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

Comments

Wake Up Reading Wars Combatants: Fluency Instruction is Part of the Science of Reading

45 comments

Wake Up Reading Wars Combatants: Fluency Instruction is Part of the Science of Reading

Comments

What Are your thoughts?

One of the world’s premier literacy educators.