Fluency Rates Accelerated

Cheryl Maddox

Reading Recovery Teacher/ ESL Teacher

Juan Seguin Elementary School

Abstract This action research investigated whether students who reread texts at home can increase their fluency rates over time. Nine at risk second-graders participated in the study. They read texts at school in small groups, took the books home to read and reread them again the next day. The students all increased their fluency rates throughout the year with the greatest gains occurring in the fall. They also increased their fluency rates at a higher percentage than non-at risk second grade students who did not participate in the study.

Background

There are many skills required for successful reading by young students.

Fluency is one of those skills that sometimes get left behind as educators push to

have students climb the DRA2 (Developmental Reading Assessment) levels.

Educators sometimes struggle with how to achieve adequate fluency rates that do

not deter a student’s comprehension; especially for those students who lag behind

their peers. It has long been known that frequent rereading of texts supports

reading fluency however, teachers are continually challenged to find more time

within the classroom to allow students the opportunity for rereading.

The purpose of this research project is to determine if frequent rereading of

instructional level books at school and at home will increase students’ fluency rates

and DRA levels and how quickly it will happen compared to other students. Fluency

refers to the rate/speed in which a student is reading as well as the phrasing and

intonation that the student uses. While phrasing and intonation is harder to

1

measure quantitatively, the rate at which a student reads is easily quantified. It is

this quantitative measure, the rate, which will be used to determine if there is a

benefit to rereading instructional texts at home.

If students are to continue to perform well on the new Texas standardized

tests (STARR), it is imperative that they read quickly as it is now a timed test.

Teachers can no longer afford to have students who read below expected reading

fluency rates. The new DRA2 standardized testing method for determining a

student’s reading level attempts to account for fluency by requiring standard

measurable fluency rates after a level 12. Those administering the assessment are

supposed to stop the assessment if the student does not reach the standard fluency

rate. However, many times that does not happen. Instead, the objective fluency rate

is averaged into the total oral reading fluency rubric, which includes other

subjective standards. Students are then pushed forward into higher reading levels

when automaticity has not been mastered at lower levels. When this occurs,

students are constantly dragged down in the text, continually having to problem

solve. Their love for reading plummets, self-esteem decreases, and they continue to

struggle with fluency for a long time. In effect, fluency rates are important and must

be addressed.

This study will follow nine 2nd grade students throughout the 2012-2013

school year. They will each have a daily guided reading session when they will

reread some of the previous day’s books, read a new book, take the new book home,

and read it at home. Fluency rates will be tracked and then compared to other

students in their classroom. DRA levels will also be tracked and compared.

2

Why teach for fluency? According to Marie Clay, fluency provides a bridge

between word recognition and comprehension (Clay, 2005). Without the

comprehension piece, reading is not really happening. One reads to gain

information; to learn something; to know a story. If one does not understand what’s

been read, then it’s as if the reading didn’t really happen.

Kaye’s (2006) study of effective second grade readers showed that students

used over 60 different ways to solve words and they did so in efficient and flexible

ways. They draw upon their knowledge of language, orthographic and phonological

knowledge, stories, text features, and what they know about the world. Their

problem solving happens quickly so their brain is free to get back to the message of

what they’re reading. When students read fluently, with effective and efficient

processing of text, it allows them to keep the greater part of their attention on the

meaning of the text (Fountas & Pinnell, 2012). This continuous, quick processing of

engaging in text with deep comprehension provides the student opportunities to

strengthen their networks of strategic reading actions thus building effective

processing systems.

It is important to note that fluency is not just quickly calling out the words on

the page as fast as you can which can be just like reading off a random list of words

on a page. Fluency is about reading fluidly with proper emphasis on phrasing,

pausing, intonation, and word syllable stress (Briggs & Forbes, 2002). When we are

talking about fluency, we are really talking about the efficient processing of text and

reading it in a way that sounds like we are talking. Reading is about finding the right

3

pace, hearing the language, feeling the movement of the sentences, and constructing

the voice of the story (Newkirk, 2012).

Over the years, I’ve listened to many students who are slow to process text,

reading print word for word and spending lots of time on an unfamiliar word. I’ve

likened their reading experience to a video streaming on a computer or your phone

– it keeps stopping. The reading gets going and then it stops again. It’s not

enjoyable and it’s not cohesive and the meaning starts to break down. It begins to

be difficult to tie it all together and really understand what happened. Watching

videos that keep stopping is like reading with low fluency. No one likes watching a

video that stops every few seconds and I’m certain that students who read that way

don’t enjoy it either. Reading with low fluency sometimes sounds like someone

simply reading off a list of words. If that is their experience reading, they are far

more likely to not pick up a book and read, as it is not pleasurable.

It’s important that educators work to break that cycle so that a student’s

experience with reading becomes more enjoyable and they develop a love of

reading. Slow reading leads to frustrations and lack of comprehension (Rasinksi,

2000). Educators strive to nurture life-long learners. Creating strong, powerful

readers enhances students’ ability to become life-long learners.

Research on Fluency

In 1974, Laberge and Samuels proposed a theory of automatic information

processing whereby students learning to read increase automaticity in processing

word units, processing these units into words, and connecting the words while

reading text. The improvement in this processing and the increased speed in which

4

it occurs then cognitively releases the reader to think about the meaning of the text.

This theory resulted in research that focused on increased speed at recognizing

words (Ehri & Wilce, 1983) and repeated readings of texts. (Samuels, 1977).

To test Laberge and Samuels’s theory, Samuels and Dahl (1979) developed a

method of repeated readings. Students were required to read a 100-word passage

repeatedly until they reached their standard of 100 words per minute (wpm).

Initially students read between 35 to 50 wpm. If the student’s first reading fell

outside of this range, the difficulty of the text was adjusted higher or lower until

their first reading fell into the range of 35 – 50 wpm. Students read the passage

orally to an adult and then reread the passage silently. After a given number of

silent rereading of the text, the student orally reread the passage to an adult again.

The expectation was for the student to reach 100 wpm before starting on a new

passage.

In Dahl’s test, 32 struggling second-graders were randomly assigned to 3

different groups. The first group worked on hypothesis testing (students use the

context to predict unknown words). The second group worked on isolated word

recognition and the third group worked on repeated readings. Dahl reported that

both the hypothesis testing group and the repeated reading group made significant

gains on fluency rates. In addition the repeated reading group decreased the

number of miscues that students made.

Since Dahl and Samuel’s study, others have done similar research on fluency

practices. The National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) examined fluency instruction in

guided oral reading and independent silent reading. Approaches examined for oral

5

reading were repeated readings, paired reading, shared reading, and assisted

reading. Independent silent reading consisted of allowing children time in the

classroom for sustained silent reading (Daily 5 method or Dear Time – drop

everything and read). The NRP found significant gains in fluency for all approaches

to guided oral reading. However, in 14 different studies that the NRP looked into,

the results for independent silent reading showed those methods to be ineffective in

improving reading fluency.

There have also been studies on students reading during and after school

hours. Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) tracked 155 5th graders reading time

after school hours and found that those that read more outside of school made

higher gains in reading achievement. However, Taylor, Frye, and Maruyama (1990)

tracked 195 5th and 6th graders reading time in and out of school and found that

reading at school produced higher reading gains. This is important to note since

this action research will be focusing on reading outside of school.

Kuhn and Stahl (2003) examined 58 studies designed to improve fluency. Of

the 58 studies, 33 used the repeated reading approach. The other studies involved

assisted reading and classroom interventions. Repeated reading studies were done

from 1979 – 1996 and were conducted with 2nd grade to college level students (only

three were above 6th grade). Kuhn and Stahl noted that of the 33 studies done on

repeated readings, 15 of the studies used a control group. Examination of the

control group studies found that in six of the studies, students made significant

gains practicing repeated readings. In eight of the studies no gains were noted using

6

the repeated readings approach. In the studies that did not use a control group, all

but one showed that fluency rates improved over time.

Besides increasing the rate of oral reading on repeated readings, other gains

were noted. Herman (1987) worked with low achieving 4th – 6th graders and

discovered that the repeated reading method increased fluency on newly read

material as well. Dowhower’s study (1987) with average 2nd graders, noted that

repeated readings improved speech pausing and intonation – prosody.

Most of the studies did not use the criterion suggested by Samuels, which

was to read the passage until the student reached 100 wpm. Instead they had

students read the passage a set number of times, typically 3-4 times. Half of those

that did use criteria, set a lower rate of 85 – 90 wpm.

The difficulty of the text used should also be noted. Clay (1993) says that

students should read easy, familiar texts to increase fluency and word knowledge.

She states that there are six stages to knowing a word; new, only just known,

successfully problem-solved, easily produced but easily thrown, well-known, and

known in many variant forms. To obtain rapid recognition with word reading,

students need to build on what is ‘easily produced but easily thrown’ to become

‘known in many variant forms’. If too much, >90%, of what they are reading is new

or only just known, the brain will have to do too much problem solving to maneuver

through the text. This is when comprehension begins to break down and more

importantly there is too much new learning occurring and little becomes solidified.

No one can learn material that is presented in a form that is too difficult (Lyons,

2003). Others argue that rereading difficult text scaffolds student’s word

7

recognition abilities (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). However, without the background and

foundation to read a difficult text, I question whether students are merely

memorizing difficult texts with multiple rereads.

Since fluency is a key component to reading, there continues to be value in

discovering the most efficient ways for students to increase and maintain fluency as

they develop their reading. Research has shown that repeated readings increase

fluency yet the challenge for teachers is how to incorporate that into their classroom

routines. This research was conducted to answer the following questions:

1) Will students increase their fluency rate on a text by rereading the text at

home that they have read at school the day before?

2) Will rereading texts at home increase their fluency rates over time?

3) Will their fluency rates accelerate at a higher pace than students who do not

participate in the study?

Methodology

Participants

This Action Research had nine participants. They were all 2nd grade students,

none were retained, three were ELL’s (English Language Learners), and two had

completed 1st grade in another district. Three of the students were female and six

were male. These students were chosen for the study because they were all behind

their peers in their ability to read. They were all at risk students. All of them, except

Student B, did poorly on the district’s Phonemic Awareness Phonics Inventory Test.

The DRA2 level scores at the end of 1st grade for the seven students who completed

1st grade in district were 14 – 16. Most of them had fluency rates that were below

8

what is required for DRA2 standards. The two students from another district did

not have DRA2 scores recorded. The district expectation is that students are able to

read independently on a level 16 – 18 to enter 2nd grade.

The students chosen for the study were not randomly chosen. They were all

at risk students who were academically behind their peers. A child’s mental and

emotional state of mind affects their ability to make connections and learn.

Therefore it is noteworthy to look at some of the outside factors that some of these

students were dealing with throughout the year that may have affected the outcome

of the study.

Student B’s reading teacher in 1st grade had been very concerned about him.

She had testing done at the end of the year. The results were that his IQ was low

and that he was working at his full potential. His mother was extremely diligent

about reading with him every night. She religiously completed the reading log.

However, he was continually late to the tutoring session and missed almost half of

the days.

Student C had struggled with reading issues since he was in Kindergarten.

His mother was very concerned about his reading abilities and had hired tutors in

addition to the morning tutoring session. Testing for dyslexia was done at the end

of the year and while it was determined that he was not dyslexic, it was determined

that he had a memory problem. His short-term ability to remember things seen or

heard was greatly hindered. Therefore automaticity in reading was very difficult for

him. He was having to continually problem solve basic sight words that he had

already seen and read many times. Knowing that, it is interesting to revisit Figure 3

9

and see how rereading increased his fluency every time. Student C experienced

emotional stress as well. At midyear he learned that his parents were talking about

divorce and his mother was involved in a serious car accident.

Student D struggled with reading fluency in 1st grade. His teacher was

concerned about his learning in all areas and at the end of 1st grade he had a full

evaluation done. It was learned that he had a very low IQ and was working to his

potential. Emotionally, Student D was struggling with something although we never

learned what it was. He was prone to severe crying fits. It appeared that his ability

to handle things when they were not going his way was on the developmental

emotional level of a two or three year old. He made references once or twice during

these episodes that something at home was bothering him but in the same

discussion it would be a student at school that was bothering him. These crying

episodes occurred several times a week.

Student E came to the district at the beginning of 2nd grade reading on an end

of Kindergarten level. He was able to make a year’s growth in reading in just four

months. This in itself is commendable. However, his growth stopped in January.

There are several factors that contributed to this. His family moved out of the

district in January and he continued going to school on our campus. Unfortunately

he was no longer coming to the morning tutoring session with the same regularity

that he was before. He was also late many days as he no longer lived close to

campus and it became a hardship for the family to get him to school without bus

transportation. His nonworking behavior also became heightened in the second half

of the school year. It had been suggested at the beginning of the year to move him

10

back into 1st grade but in the end he remained in 2nd grade with the intention of

having him repeat 2nd grade. This could have led to teacher’s expectation of only

having to get him to the end of 1st grade curriculum. Student E was retained in 2nd

grade at year-end.

Student F also had difficulty handling events when they did not go her way.

Her crying episodes involved wailing and would last a long time. Fortunately they

only occurred about once a month.

Student G had severe family issues. In conferencing with his father once he

mentioned that it was best he not stay in the home for fear that anger issues would

land him in prison. Student G was also a latch key child. His mother worked nights

and there was no one there with him when he got home from school. He spoke of

not having someone to make him dinner. It was clear that no one was reading with

him at home. He never completed the reading log. The first half of the year he said

he read at home but the second half of the year he admitted that he didn’t read at

home. Regardless, throughout the year he dearly wanted to take the books home

with him, even though he said he wasn’t reading them. He also complained many

times of his older brother hitting on him. He struggled a lot with the English

language and many times it was difficult to understand him.

Student I came into 2nd grade reading on beginning 1st grade levels. She had

recently been removed from her home due to abuse taking place from her mother

and her mother’s boyfriend. She was also keenly aware of how her biological

mother was not fit to raise her and that her mother had made some parenting

mistakes. At the beginning of the school year, a foster family had agreed to adopt

11

her and her younger brother and they were placed in that home. Her brother

exhibited severe behavioral issues, and in December the foster family was talking

about backing out of the adoption. This would mean she would be going to another

foster family and another school. Student I was aware of all of this and talked

frequently about not wanting to make another move. She did not seem to know

from day to day if she was staying or going with this new family. In the end she

remained with the family throughout the school year but at year end she still did not

know if she would be continuing to live with them or not.

Materials

The students read guided reading books from Rigby PM, Pioneer Valley, and

The Wright Group. These books are aligned and leveled with Fountas & Pinnell and

the DRA2 assessment. They are specifically designed for emergent readers with

proper spacing and font size. Throughout the study, students read texts that were at

their instructional and independent level. Students were also given a book bag to

carry their books home. In each book bag they had a reading log.

Procedures

The nine students participated in a before school tutoring session that met

daily from 7:30 – 8:10. There were two groups and each group met for 20 minutes.

During the 20 minutes the students read the book that they had read at home the

night before and then read a new book. During the tutoring session, the students

were coached on reading strategies, phonetic rules, and phrasing and fluency. They

then took the new book home to read that night.

12

Data Sources

The outcomes of the study were measured with DRA2, timed fluency tests,

and teacher observations. The DRA2 measures reading engagement, oral reading

fluency, and comprehension. Within the oral reading fluency there is a rubric that

measures expression, phrasing, rate, and accuracy. Expression and phrasing are

subjective measures, and rate and accuracy are objective. The four are averaged

together to determine overall oral reading fluency. When the rate or accuracy falls

below the standard for the level, the assessment is to be stopped. Sometimes,

however, when the fluency rate is below the standard, the assessor continues the

assessment and scores the four components of the oral reading fluency. If the

averaged oral reading fluency falls within the standard range, the assessor marks

that the student independently read that level.

Periodic random timed fluency tests were taken. These were taken on books

that the student read for the first time in the reading session. The test was done

again the next day after the student had read the book at home. These fluency tests

averaged about one per student per month. In addition, teacher observations were

used to determine if there was improvement in phrasing and intonation.

Data Analysis

First, benchmark fluency rates will be obtained from prior DRA2 testing.

These scores will come from DRA2 testing done at the end of 1st grade (May 2012)

and testing done after the first full month of 2nd grade instruction (September

2012). This will be presented in a Table that shows the actual scores and will also

13

be shown in a chart that compares the test results. To protect privacy issues for the

students, they will be identified in the tables and charts with alpha letters.

Next, monthly fluency tests were taken for each student. These consisted of a

score for the first read and then a score taken the next day for the third read (the

second read occurred at home the night before). This test was only done if the

student had read the night before. Each of the student’s first read was averaged and

then compared to the average of their third read. These results are presented in

Figure 2.

Then, DRA2 testing scores were obtained from mid year (January 2013) and

end of year (May 2013). These scores were compared to benchmark scores to see

the progression throughout the year in Figure 4. Throughout the year, students’

fluency rates were being tested on increasingly more difficult reading passages as

the year progressed. Therefore, to see a true comparison of the student’s fluency

rate from the beginning of the study to the end, the participants were retested on

the same DRA2 level that they had read for the benchmark. Figure 5 shows these

results.

Last, aggregate DRA2 testing results were obtained for all 2nd graders and

data comparisons were made with the test group.

Parental Consent Procedure

Parents were informed by telephone and in writing about the study sessions.

They agreed to bring their child to school early every day, read with them at night

and complete the reading logs.

14

Analysis Findings

Benchmark Findings

Student’s baseline fluency rates were obtained from the prior school year,

May 2012. In September 2012, students were assessed again with DRA2. Table 1

shows the results from these two testing periods. Overall, very little change

occurred with fluency rates over the summer. Reading levels either stayed the same

or decreased. Student E and Student I came from another district and did not have

scores recorded anywhere for May 2012.

Table 1 Baseline Fluency Rates

Student Gender ELL DRA2 level May

2012

Fluency Rate

Accuracy Rate

DRA2 level Sept 2012

Fluency Rate

Accuracy Rate

A F No 14 46 98 12 * 94 B M No 14 42 97 14 53 98 C M No 16 17 94 16 19 90 D M No 14 35 96 10 32 97 E M No 6 28 95 F F No 16 30 95 12 29 96 G M Yes 14 37 96 10 47 95 H M Yes 16 33 95 16 35 95 I F No 6 * 94

* Fluency is not recorded below a level 14 on the DRA2

Figure 1, below, shows a comparison between the changes in fluency rates over the

summer. This is before the intervention started. Student A, E & I were not included

since they did not have rates to compare.

15

Figure 1 Fluency Rates Compared from May 2012 – September 2012 from DRA2 Random Fluency Tests Throughout the study, each student was randomly given fluency tests. These

tests showed remarkable improvement from one reading to the next in fluency.

Students were able to reach fluency rates as high as 89 wpm on their third read of

the book.

Figure 2 Average Fluency Rates on 1st Read to 3rd Read October 2012 – April 2013

0102030405060

B C D F G H

Flue

ncy

Rate

s w

pm

Students

Fluency Comparison from May 2012 - September 2012

May-12

Sep-12

0

20

40

60

80

100

A B C D E F G H I

Flue

ncy

Rate

wpm

Students

Average Fluency on 1st Read & 3rd Read

1st Read

3rd Read

16

It is also noteworthy that fluency rates on 1st reads increased steadily

throughout the year. In October student A’s fluency rate on a 1st read was 40 wpm.

In April it was 69. This is a 72% increase. Below, a scatter plot shows one student’s

progression throughout the year.

Figure 3 Fluency test results for Student C DRA2 Test Results

DRA2 test results for the participants were obtained for mid year (January

2013) and end of year (May, 2013). These results showed on average significant

gains from September to January for all students and minor gains from January to

May. It is important to note that DRA2 fluency is taken on a student’s first read of

the text while random fluency tests were taken on the 3rd reading of the text.

Reading logs were examined and students were diligent in reading every night from

October to December. In the second semester of the year, about half the students

were no longer reading every night. It is possible that the lack of reading

contributed to the slowing of progress. It is also possible that students reach a

0102030405060708090

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April

Flue

ncy

Rate

wpm

Fluency Progression

1st Read

3rd Read

17

plateau. This will be analyzed further with 2nd grade students who did not

participate in the study.

Figure 4 Fluency rates compared Note – Student A’s rate for September 2012 is from May 2012

At mid year DRA2 testing, seven out of nine students met the required

reading fluency rate for the level they were being tested on. At year end, only 3 out

of nine met the reading fluency rate for the level they were reading. Out of the six

that did not reach the required fluency rate, student C and D did not meet the rate at

the beginning of the year, at mid year, or at year end. The majority of the students

peaked at mid year and slowed at year end. This could also be due to the text level

difficulty that had significantly increased from mid year to year end. Table 2 shows

students texts levels at each DRA2 testing period and whether they met the DRA2

standard for fluency for that level.

0102030405060708090

A B C D E F G H I

Flue

ncy

Rate

wpm

Students

Change in Fluency from Sept 2012 - May 2013

Sep-12

Jan-13

May-13

18

Table 2 Comparison of text levels & fluency rates met on DRA2 testing

Student Sept 2012 DRA2 Level

Met Fluency

Jan 2013 DRA2 Level

Met Fluency

May 2013 DRA2 level

Met Fluency

A 14 Yes 20 Yes 24 Yes B 14 Yes 20 Yes 24 Yes C 16 No 18 No 24 No D 14 No 18 No 24 No E 6 * 16 Yes 18 Yes F 16 No 16 Yes 24 No G 14 No 14 Yes 24 No H 16 No 20 Yes 24 No I 6 * 16 Yes 20 No

* Fluency rate not recorded below level 14

Upon examining the data, it was noted that those that met the fluency rate at

year end were also making smaller increases in text levels from mid year to year

end. It is possible if the students were tested at a lower level that they would have

met the requirement.

DRA2 Retest

The results from retesting students on the same DRA2 leveled test that

students took one year ago showed dramatic increases. All students, except student

B, doubled their fluency rate when reading the same leveled text that they had a

year ago. The minimum fluency rate for the levels they were tested at is 40 wpm.

Their fluency would far exceed what was necessary for the fluency rate in the oral

reading fluency rubric of the DRA2.

19

Figure 5 Fluency Rate change between year with the same DRA2 level book DRA2 Results for Other 2nd Graders

The average DRA2 fluency rate for all other 2nd graders was 82 wpm at the

beginning of the year and 104 wpm at the end of the year. On average the group

made a 26% increase in fluency rates throughout the year. The test group had an

average reading fluency rate of 36 wpm at the beginning of the year and 60 wpm at

the end of the year. They made a 66% increase in fluency rates. While their

increase was more dramatic, the group is still below where average 2nd graders

read.

A comparison can also be made with the other remaining low fluency readers

in 2nd grade who did not participate in the study. There were ten 2nd graders whose

reading fluency rate fell between 45 – 58 wpm at the beginning of the year. The

average fluency rate for this group was 53 wpm at the beginning of the year and 82

wpm at the end of the year. They made an average increase of 53% throughout the

0102030405060708090

100

A B C D E F G H

Flue

ncy

Rate

wpm

Students

Fluency Rates with same DRA2 Level

May-12

May-13

20

year while the test group made an increase of 66%. This group also made most of

their fluency gains in the first half of the year.

Figure 6 DRA2 Fluency Rates for next 10 lowest 2nd Graders Teacher Observations

Teacher observations are completely subjective but they are valid results. It

was noted that by the end of the year all of the participants were no longer reading

word for word. They were all reading with a minimum phrasing of three to four

words at appropriate places to convey meaning. Most of what slowed their fluency

down was when they slowed to problem-solve at a point of difficulty. Their points

of difficulty were fewer than at the beginning of the year and they were able to

problem solve quicker and easier than before. All students, except H and I, had

developed a good sense of intonation and expression with their story reading.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Flue

ncy

Rate

wpm

Next lowest 10 2nd Graders

DRA2 Fluency Rates

Sep-12

Jan-13

May-13

21

Discussion

This action research showed that students in the test group did improve their

fluency. Figure 2 illustrates the power of rereading text numerous times as Samuels

suggested. Figure 3 also shows that fluency can be increased over time. What the

research doesn’t tell us is what would happen to fluency if no intervention had taken

place. Do students naturally increase fluency over time just by being in the

classroom? Figure 6 shows that the next ten lowest fluent readers in 2nd grade also

increased their fluency but overall, not as significantly as the test group. It is

important to take into account that there are a multitude of factors that come into

play when comparing students across the grade level such as homeroom reading

teachers, home life, phonemic awareness, cognitive abilities, prior year reading

teacher, illness, being tardy, outside tutoring and other school interventions a child

might be receiving. So when comparing the test group to other 2nd graders, a like for

like comparison cannot be made.

Another factor to keep in mind is that the test group was also the hardest to

teach. A child’s mental attitude as well as the attitude of those that teach them plays

a large part in the degree of success a child will make. Research in neuroscience

over the last ten years has proven that emotions are essential to thinking and

remembering (Greenspan, 1997; LeDoux, 1996; Levine, 2002). Two conditions are

necessary for learning; the student experiences an enriched environment with

positive social interactions and meaningful conversations, and the student has the

will to learn (Lyons, 2003). Emotional stress and trauma severally hinder the

brain’s ability to make strong neural connections. When young learners are

22

undergoing emotional stress, their focus can be elsewhere and the brain’s receptive

ability to forge new networking is weakened. The fact that these students were all

at risk and were the lowest performing second-graders on campus, it is impressive

that they made greater gains in fluency than the next ten lowest second-graders that

did not participate in the study.

Reflections/Action Plans

Based on the results of this action research, I will continue to stress the

importance of having emergent readers reread familiar texts to strengthen their

fluency. If there is not time in the classroom for this to occur, then it is important

that it happen at home. All the students in the test group valued taking the books

home. They took care of them and all of the books were returned. Many students

read RAZ kids at home on the computer but this program has the students read the

story one time and then take a quiz. It will be suggested that the students read it

several times to build fluency. The goal has been to get students to accurately read a

text level. When the mentality begins to shift that fluency is equally important for a

student to read that particular level, then the emphasis will grow for building

fluency. In addition, I think it is important to continue to look at ways that

classroom teachers can effectively incorporate activities in the classroom that build

fluency for students.

23

References

Anderson, R., Wilson, P. & Fielding, L. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303. Briggs, C., & Forbes, S. (2002). Phrasing in Fluent Reading: Process and Product. Journal of Reading Recovery, Spring 2002, 1-9. Clay, M. (2005). Literacy Lessons Part Two. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. (2001). Change Over Time in Children’s Literacy Development. ( pg 123) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Dahl, P.R. (1979). An experimental program for teaching high speed word recognition and comprehension skills. In J. E. Button, T. Lovitt, & T. Rowland (Eds.), Communications research in learning disabilities and mental retardation 33-65. Baltimore: University Park Press. Dowhower, S. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389-406. Ehri, L.C., & Wilce, L.S. (1983). Development of word identification speed in skilled and less skilled beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 3-18 Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. (2012). Guided Reading The Romance and the Reality. The Reading Teacher, 274. Herman, P. (1985). The effect of repeated readings on reading rate, speech pauses, and word recognition accuracy. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 553-565. Greenspan, S.I. (1997). The Growth of the Mind and the Endangered Origins of Intelligence. Reading , MA: Addison-Wesley. Kaye, E.L. (2006). Second graders’ reading behaviors: A study of variety, complexity, and change. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 51-75. Kuhn, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. (2009). All Oral Reading Practice is not Equal or How Can I Integrate Fluency Into My Classroom? Literacy Teaching and Learning, 11 (1), 1-20. Kuhn, M., & Stahl, S. (2003). Fluency: A Review of Developmental and Remedial Practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 3-21 LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

24

LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Touchstone. Levine, M. (2002). A Mind at a Time. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lyons, C. (2003). Teaching Struggling Readers. (pgs 23 & 72) Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the subgroups: National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development.

Newkirk, T. (2012, January 25). Reading is not a race: The virtues of the ‘slow reading’ movement. The Washington Post.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/reading-is-not-a-race-the-virtues-of-the-slow-reading- movement/2012/01/25/GIQA4RVCbQ_blog.html. Rasinski, T.V. (2000). Speed Does Matter in Reading. The Reading Teacher, 54, 146-152. Samuels. S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408. Taylor, B., Frye, B., & Maruyama, G. (1990). Time spent reading and reading growth. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 351-362.

25