Critical Tasks of Reading: Fluency & Comprehension

Reading requires readers to successfully carry out two very different tasks: the ability to decode words fluently and comprehend the text.  Although fluency and comprehension are only two parts of a balanced literacy curriculum, they may very well be the two most important skills for reading success.  Each year school-age children across America are assessed of their ability to read fluently.  Running Records and Qualitative Reading Inventories (QRIs) have long been a source for fluency assessment, until 2001 when the University of Oregon established Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELs).  Now a well known literacy test assessing students in more than 45 states, it still has its critics.  This article critiques the DIBELs assessment against similar tests of fluency, such as Running Records and QRIs, as a means of assessing and promoting fluency.  Furthermore, because fluency is in part a prerequisite to comprehension, this article will highlight the strategies most consistently recommended by experts in the field of literacy, in order to improve reader comprehension.

Fluency is “the ability to read accurately, quickly, effortlessly, and with appropriate expression and meaning” (Rasinski, 2005).  It is a necessary component of reading because it indicates that the reader has effortlessly decoded the words.  Successful text decoding is a precursor to comprehension.  As LaBerge and Samuels pointed  out in their 1974 theory of automaticity in reading, readers who must devote a sufficient amount of time and energy to decoding compromise the important task of making sense of the text; comprehension (Rasinski, 2005).  Thus comprehension is negatively affected by a lack of fluency and some researchers may argue that comprehension comes with fluency.  Regardless of whether fluency comes on its own or is a specific strategy that must be taught, one can not dispute that it is a building block of early literacy.

To assess a student’s fluency, timed reading tests are generally given, measuring two components: words correct per minute and reading fluency rate.  The words correct per minute is measured as a percentage of words read correctly from some total number of words, and reading fluency is determined as the number of words read correctly in a given time period, compared with published standards per grade level. The Institute for Literacy has defined  fluency testing as a calculated series of 1-minute tests. The National Reading Panel outlines a procedure for calculating fluency.  It begins with having the administrator select 2 or 3 grade leveled texts (regardless of the student’s instructional level) and have the student read each passage for exactly one minute. vThe administrator counts the number of words read during each test, and computes the average for the number of words read per minute.  Second, the administrator counts the number of words read incorrectly in each passage and computes the average number of errors per minute.  To calculate the average number of correct words read per minute (WCPM) the  administrator then subtracts the average number of errors read per minute from the average total number of words read per minute.  The WCPM rate should then be compared with published standards for fluency at the student’s current grade level (National Institute for Literacy, 2000). 

In 2001 federal funding used to support the No Child Left Behind Act opened the  Reading First Center on Teaching and Learning to support literacy education in Oregon schools.   From that committee the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELs) assessment was created.  Based on the five big ideas researched and supported by the National Reading Panel,  DIBELs assesses phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy & fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.  In the last 10 years DIBELs has become a household name in the world of early childhood literacy.  Now in it’s 6th edition, DIBELs is used widely across the country; at least 45 states include it as a measure of early childhood literacy skills, but its success does not come without critics (Center for Teaching and Learning, 2010).  DIBELs relies on a method of taking a median score versus a mean, perplexing some critics such as the New York State Education Department which questions “what is the advantage of taking the median score versus the average?”  (Center for Teaching and Learning, 2010).  DIBELs assesses oral reading fluency with a per-selected series of three 1-minute timed tests.   Students are given the text and told to begin reading, while they are timed and scored by an administrator. When 1 minute has passed students are told to stop reading.  The passages are scored for errors, and the total number of words read correctly is recorded as the score.  The median score from the three passages is then recorded as the child’s fluency score.  For example, if the student receives scores of 27, 36, and 25, the recorded score would be 27.  The Dynamic Measurement Group of the University of Oregon maintains that the median score is the most reliable estimate of a child’s performance.  Taking the median score minimizes error in measurement due to extraneous factors such as a child’s background knowledge or interest in particular passage.  Mean versus median is not the only topic of critique DIBELs has received as a method of assessing student fluency.  Miscues and errors in the DIBELs oral reading fluency assessment differs from running records, qualitative reading inventories, and other widely used fluency assessments.

  Running Records, created by reading remedial specialist, Marie M. Clay, assesses oral reading fluency in a way somewhat different from how DIBELs does.  The biggest difference is that DIBELs assess students at a grade level benchmark, whereas various running records can be administered to students regardless of their grade level.  Running Records seek to determine the child’s independent and instructional reading levels, which means a first grader can essentially be administered a fifth grade passage if it is at his independent reading level.  When the passages become too difficult for the child, the instructional level is determined and the test is concluded (Clay, 2000)   Running Records analyze six types of miscues, some are the same as DIBELs while others are vastly different.    While hesitations are not miscued in Running Records, nor are errors in the pronunciation or abbreviations, numerals,  and hyphenated words, there is some miscue analysis in Running Records not recordable as an error by DIBELs assessment.  Most obvious are that all self-corrections are recorded as errors in Running Records.  Similarly, repeated words are ignored and not marked as errors in DIBELs but do count against a student’s score in Running Records.  Substitutions are an additional kind of Running Record error that too is not mentioned in DIBELs oral reading fluency assessment.  A close look at another widely used fluency assessment, Qualitative Reading Inventories, provides another reason to question DIBELs fluency assessment measures.  Essentially, a student could read a single passage have three different administrators score them very differently depending on which fluency measure they were using (Leslie & Caldwell, 2000). 

Additionally, critics of DIBELs have questioned the fairness of the assessment of English Language Learner students and those with disabilities.  In 2008 the Oregon Reading First Center  addressed some the most frequent concerns aiming to dispel myths and rumors of DIBELs assessment.  The Oregon Reading First center proclaimed that DIBELs is an appropriate measure of students for whom English is a second language, unless the student is learning to read in another language.  Furthermore, Oregon Reading First stated that DIBELs is an appropriate measure for all students, even those with Individualized Educational Plans in literacy. The few exceptions are that DIBELs is not appropriate for students that are deaf, have severe disabilities, or have disabilities that affect their speech, such as stuttering, or oral paraxial (Center for Teaching & Learning, 2010).  Although fluency has been identified as an important ingredient in reading, it is only a part of the critical task of being able to read.  Decoding is one part, and comprehension is the other ingredient for success (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004).  Comprehension cannot rely on fluency alone however, it takes practice and skillful use of strategies that work.  There are effective strategies for reading comprehension that are widely recognized as suitable for teaching to young readers and/or less proficient readers in order to improve their comprehension.   Stephanie Harvey and Anne Goudvis, authors of Strategies that Work, have identified 6 key strategies for improving comprehension.  Their strategies, which are geared for K-8 students include activating background knowledge, questioning, visualizing and inferring, determining importance, and summarizing information (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000).   Harvey’s colleague, Debbie Miller,  highlights the same strategies in her book, Reading with Meaning, for the K-3 students.  Miller refers to visualizing as “creating mental images”, and stresses the importance of activating background knowledge through making connections.  Most primary teachers will confirm that their students are constantly making text to self connections, but had more difficulty making text-to-text and text-to-world connections (Miller, 2002).  Activation of background knowledge and making connections are on the forefront of Miller’s strategies for primary-age children, while with explicit instruction, modeling, and a gradual release of responsibility primary students can practice this and the other strategies on their own.   Fisher, Frey, and Lapp describe their experience observing and interviewing 67 nominated, and expert teachers in the field of literacy, who focused on the same reading comprehension strategies promoted by Harvey and Miller.  The findings of their study showed that teachers modeled their own thinking while students were primarily silent observers.  Teachers described their thinking and modeled multiples ways of thinking rather than focusing primarily on one strategy at a time. As one teacher commented, “we need to show students how to incorporate these things automatically and not artificially stop and summarize or question or whatever”. (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, p. 550).   At the same time, teachers expressed that it is important to not use all of the strategies in their modeling.  In fact, Duke and Pearson assert that each mini-lesson should be kept brief, 10-15 minutes and then gradually move from a position in which the teacher assume all of the responsibility to a situation where the students assume all the responsibility.  This gradual release of responsibility allows the teacher use direct instruction through modeling, followed by guided practice of the strategy to a region of shared responsibility among students and teachers performing the comprehension technique (Duke & Pearson, 2002). To reiterate, DIBELs assesses students on a variety of areas of literacy, including initial sound fluency, letter naming recognition, nonsense word fluency, and oral reading fluency.  Oral reading fluency is the most effective DIBELs measure for assessing oral fluency. DIBELs assesses oral reading fluency at students’ grade level benchmark and compares their scores against benchmark standards.  DIBELs then suggests strategic or intensive interventions for less proficient readers.  In addition to the interventions suggested by DIBELs, comprehension monitoring strategies suggested by experts in the field of literacy, modeled through guided practice and a gradual release of responsibility promote increased comprehension when practiced regularly.  All of these parts of literacy contribute to a balanced and rich early learning environment that will prepare children for success in reading while providing teachers with the assessment tools to teach to where their students are at.

For More Information:

• • Center for Teaching and Learning. (2010). Official DIBELS homepage
  • Clay, M.M., (2000). Running records for classroom teachers. Heinmann.
  • Duke, N. K., & Pearson, D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels, What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205-242). International Reading Association.
  • Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2008). Shared readings: modeling comprehension, vocabulary, text structures, and text features for older readers. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 548-556.
  • Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work. Stenhouse Publishers.
  • Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2000). Qualitative reading inventories-3. Pearson Education.
  • Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning. Stenhouse Publishers.
  • National Institute for Literacy. (2000). Put reading first: the research building blocks for teaching children to read (PR/Award Number R305R70004). US Department of Education.
  • Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeown, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Heim, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48 (1),

Parents Preparing Children for Success in Learning to Read and the Importance of Phonemic Awareness

The foundations of early literacy development begin at home. Children begin learning about literacy long before they are able to read. Although research suggests the literature rich environment in which children are raised varies considerably, it can be assumed that most parents, regardless of their approach to early education, hope their children will successfully learn to read, and some will make attempts to prepare their children for success in learning to read. This article will highlight just that, research based strategies parents can do to best prepare their young children for successfully learning to read. As an instructor of early education, it is the experience of the author of this article that phonemic awareness is one part of a balanced literacy program that is often misunderstood by parents. It is a skill that with early practice is essential for learning to read. Therefore, the explanation and importance of phonemic awareness will too be brought to light as a contributing skill for success in early literacy.

It is important to note the variety in type of literacy that occurs in homes. Although on may not realize it, literature appears everywhere. Literature is in the story a picture tells. Like the old saying goes, “a picture tells a thousand words”. Many children are fortune to experience the pleasure of being read to. Children who experience story time learn that print represents words, and words tell an account of something. Children may develop favorite stories and can expect these narratives to be the same each time they are read. Evidence of storytelling’s favorable impact on early literacy is undeniable. “Children who have had many and diver experiences in storybook reading do well on school-based measures of literacy” (Paratore, 57). However, not all children participate in story time experiences prior to a formal schooling experience. “There are other rich and varied literacy and language practices that are embedded in the fabric of children’s daily lives” (Paratore, 57). Though such practices may go unnoticed, a short list of everyday uses of literature and language appears quite impressive. Consider the following uses of everyday language: cutting coupons, reading roads signs, singing songs, filling out a form, cooking from a recipe, perusing the television guide, studying sports scores, balancing a budget, conversation, etc.

Unfortunately, socioeconomic status appears to parallel laying a literacy rich foundation for early literacy skills. “By the age of 3, children in poverty [are] already well behind their more affluent peers” according to a study by G. Wells, 1986 (Waskik and Bond, 63). On the basis of his study, Wells found that lower-income parents placed less value on literacy as evidenced by an absence of books in the home, and lack of rich language use. Not only do children in poverty have less access to literature materials, but their opportunities to converse with adults is 2x-3x lower than that of their middle-class counterparts. Therefore, providing a literacy rich learning environment in the home appears to require access to text, opportunities for read alouds, and meaningful conversation between child and adult.

“Reading aloud to children at home…is probably the most highly recommended activity for encouraging language and literacy” (Beck & McKeown, 2001). Read alouds strength brain development by forcing children to think about more than just the here and now. To make these experiences most effective for children, text must be challenging, and parents must engage in “text talk”, that is “getting children to think about what is going on in the story” (Freppon, p. 144, et al Beck & McKeown, 2001). Talking about text entails asking opened ended questions, activating background knowledge, making comparisons between text and text and/or text and real life, and explaining new vocabulary.

The key to preparing young children for success in learning to read is by providing read aloud experiences coupled with effective text talk. Although it may be relatively easy for middle class parents to provide read aloud experiences for their children, it is not as simple to engage in text talk that promotes language and literacy development. The most common read-aloud strategies are not the most effective. It takes practice on behalf of the parent and child. Use of open-ended questions allows children to construct meaning from what has been. Considering the following questions: “That character’s getting into trouble, isn’t he?” versus “What’s the character doing now?”, the latter probes the listener to construct meaning. Beck and McKeown suggest occasionally waiting to show pictures until after the reading has been discussed. Children often rely too heavily on pictures cues and can misconstrue basic story information when the content of the pictures is in conflict with the text (p 17). “Children need help in bringing background knowledge to bear in appropriate ways”, rather than simply recalling personal experiences, they need to be helped understand how their connection compares with the text. Parents also need to take advantage of the sophisticated vocabulary found in texts, by applying it in conversations with their children. Young children can handle challenging content (McKeown, 10).

In my experiences as an early education educator I have encountered numerous parents that have provided literacy strategies to help their children become successful readers. These parents provided read-aloud opportunities for their children and engaged in successful text talk. Moreover, the culture of their home was a rich literacy environment that included varieties of everyday text, early writing opportunities, singing, phonological activities (rhyming, knowledge of onset & rime), use of rich language, and letter recognition. Although their children knew the alphabet, could print their name, and recognize both upper and lowercase letters, time and time again parents have commented they wished they had spent more time on phonemic awareness. “Phonemes are the smallest units that make up spoken language. English consists of approximately 41-44 phonemes” (Ehri & Nunes). The letters of the English alphabet represent the phonemes in the spelling of words.

Phonemic awareness is a particularly difficult concept to understand. Whereas letter recognition simply implies being able to identify upper and lowercase letters in print, phonemic awareness relies entirely on listening to the units of sounds in spoken language. Many people confuse phonemic awareness with phonics, which is better explained as associating speech sounds with each corresponding letter. Phonemic awareness is difficult because there are more phonemes in the English language than there are letters in the alphabet. Many letter sounds blend together to form a single phoneme which is very difficult to distinguish because “there are no boundaries in speech marking where one phoneme ends and another begins”.

Phonemic awareness is essential for learning to read because of the sheer volume of words in our English language. Occasionally teachers run across a proficient early reader who appears to have mastered decoding, when in reality the students Has simply memorized a considerable amount of sight words. This system of reading may work for a few years, but eventually as the student encounter complex and richer vocabulary, without phonemic awareness skills the reader will fail to advance. While it is true that nearly 85% of the words adults read are sight words, the other 25% must be decoded or sounded out. For one to become a fluent reader, they must understand how to break works into smaller segments and break the code, so to speak.

“Phonemic awareness measured at the beginning of kindergarten is one of the best predictors of how well the child will learn to read during the first two years of school” (Paratore, 2001). Phonemic awareness is equally important in early literacy to write as it is to read. It’s no mystery that writing and reading go hand-in-hand. A beginning writer uses invented spelling by sounding out the smallest pieces of language (phonemes), and putting them into print (Yopp & Yopp, pg 131). The English language is much like a prescription. There is a prescribed spelling and pronunciation for each word dependent on the regularities of phonemes. Although some words with silent letters and unusual spellings defy the rules of the English language, most words can be decoded and spelled correctly simply by having a phonemic awareness and applying it to break words down to the smallest unit of sound.

To reiterate, the most important things parents can do to prepare their children for success in learning to read include providing read aloud experiences coupled with effective text talk. Effective text talk increases a child’s vocabulary and provides essential comprehension strategies such as answering opened ended questions, activating background knowledge, making comparisons between text and text and/or text and real life, and inferring main ideas. In part with providing a literacy rich home environment, parents might consider providing phonological experiences for their child, such as singing songs, playing rhyming games, and teaching children to identify onset and rime. In addition to learning letter names and basic sight word recognition, parents can provide phonics lessons for their children by teaching the sounds associated with each letter. Children who engage in early writing activities such as labeling pictures, and use of invented spellings are practicing phonemic awareness skills by sounding out words and breaking speech into the smallest units of sound for decoding purposes. All of these parts of literacy contribute to a balanced and rich early learning environment that will prepare children for success in school.