1

Running head: QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

Quality Interventions for Reading Fluency

Amy Donovan
University of Calgary

2
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

Reading is complex process which develops gradually over the elementary school years.
Essential components of reading instruction (Fuchs et al., 2001)
composed of four pillars: phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency and reading
comprehension. A breakdown in any one pillar will lead to impaired reading performance. While
phonemic awareness, phonics and comprehension have typically been the focus of reading
instruction, reading fluency has been a neglected goal until recently and has been rarely treated
as the focus of an intervention (Allington, 1983). Educators have become increasingly aware of
the connection between fluency and comprehension, mainly, fluency facilitates comprehension.
Allington suggests that teachers often mistake poor fluency as a symptom of poor reading rather
than a problem in itself. As a result, interventions typically focus on letter, sound and word
instruction (decoding and accuracy) resulting in the continuation of dysfluent reading, rather than
the intended goal of improving fluency (Allington, 1983).
With the relatively recent understanding of the importance of fluency development,
educators and school psychologists are being called upon to design effective interventions to
support these struggling readers. As Upah & Tilly suggest, gone are the days of the school
psychologist simply diagnosing the students problem. Today, an alternate approach is necessary,
focusing on the development of quality interventions that will allow for increased student
success. Rather than providing educators with a report containing a list of interventions that
might be effective for a particular student, and may or may not be implemented by the classroom
teacher, school psychologists are becoming increasingly accountable for the design,
implementation and evaluation of quality interventions (Upah & Tilly, 2002).

3
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

The purpose of this paper is to examine current and long-standing research in the area of
reading fluency interventions, through the lens of Upah & Tillys best practices in designing,
implementing, and evaluating quality interventions. Research into the development and
processes involved in reading fluency are presented, followed by the factors that contribute to
dysfluent reading as well as research-based interventions that have been proven to improve
reading fluency in struggling readers.
The ability to read words effortlessly with speed and accuracy is essential to reading
achievement (Wendling & Mather, 2009). It allows the reader to actively construct meaning, as
well as analyze, draw conclusions and make inferences from text; critical goals of the reading
process. While fluent reading will sound as if the process of reading is effortless, it is anything
but. Oral reading fluency is a complex process involving the coordination of visual,
orthographic, phonological, semantic, and conceptual and articulation processes (Fuchs et al.,
2001; Wilson, 2011). It requires the reader to segment words according to their phonological
components, recode and recognize words rapidly, which indicates the readers overall level of
reading competence (Fuchs et al., 2001). It involves ...translating letters into coherent sound
representations, putting those sounds together into wholes....processing meaningful
connections...(and) relating text meaning to prior information and making inferences to supply
missing information (Fuchs et al., 2001). Often referred to as prosody, fluent readers read with
the same quality as which speak, pausing in the appropriate places, emphasizing meaningful
words, and pausing to reflect punctuation (Wilson, 2011).
Dysfluent readers, on the other hand, are often described as word by word readers
(Allington, 1983). They have reduced reading rate and poor comprehension skills in comparison
to their more fluent peers (Mastropieri, Leinart & Scruggs, 1999; Wilson, 2011). As a result of

4
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

their slow reading rate, they will encounter fewer words than their peers resulting in a poor
readers get poorer effect (Wilson, 2001). Dysfluent readers must carefully attend to the
identification of words in text and therefore have reduced ability to attend to the higher-level
cognitive processes such as comprehension (Samuels, 1979; Wilson, 2001). As LeBerge &
Samuels suggest, reading involves the coordination of many component processes within the
brain; one must become automatic in certain component processes to allow for attention to be
focused on others (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). As Kirby points out, working memory also plays
a role in reading fluency. If word recognition is slow, then words which have previously been
read will not be retained in working memory to allow for the connected processing of words read
later (Fuchs et al., 2001).
The ability to recognize words is an essential component of reading development and
contributes significantly to the development of reading fluency (Fuchs et al, 2001; Samuels,
1979; Wendling, 2009). Samuels outlines three stages of word recognition which : the nonaccurate stage, the accuracy stage and the automatic stage. The non-accurate stage is
characterized by difficulty recognizing words. Moving to the accuracy stage, students are able to
accurately recognize words when they attend to the decoding and blending of those words.
Readers in this stage read at a slow rate with little or no expression and comprehension. At the
automatic stage, readers are able to recognize words without specifically attending to decoding.
Automatic readers are able to read expressively at a rate that sounds like speaking and are able to
comprehend what they have read (Samuels, 1974). According to LaBerge & Samuels, the
readers full attention at the non-accurate stage is focused on decoding words and as a result,
they are unable to attend to higher order cognitive processes such as fluency or comprehension.
During the accuracy stage, automaticity is developing however attention is split between word

5
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

recognition and additional processes such as developing fluency and comprehension. By the
automatic stage, word identification has become automatic and the reader is no longer required
to attend to lower-level cognitive details such as decoding, leaving attentional capacity for higher
level processes (LaBerge & Samuel, 1974).
A variety of factors can contribute to difficulty in the area of reading fluency. Research
by Wolf & Cohen suggests the following sources of dysfluency: a breakdown in language
learning, specifically, phonological or orthographic processing; failure to make connections
between higher and lower order cognitive processes (semantics and phonology); slow word
retrieval; and a breakdown in the processes involved in syntax ( prosody & rhythm). Torgesen &
Hudson suggest such factors as: the number of words in a passage that can be recognized by
sight, the speed in which unfamiliar words can be decoded, the use of context to aid in word
identification, the speed with which word and overall meaning is constructed and differences the
students belief in the importance of speed over accuracy. The most significant factor, however,
found to account for variance in fluency among studentss with reading disabilities is the speed in
which individual words are recognized (Torgesen & Hudson, 2006).
Before presenting specific interventions to improve reading fluency, general guidelines
for the development and implementation of interventions have been suggested in the research. As
Torgesen & Hudson suggest, time is often limited and thus effective use of time is essential when
planning interventions. Thus, practitioners must select interventions that will have the most
significant impact for the student (Torgensen & Hudson, 2006). Regardless of the intervention
chosen, frequent and specific corrective feedback while the student is reading has been proven to
reduce the number of word errors and improve reading fluency while praise and rewards
contingent on increased fluency have led to similar success (Lock & Welsch, 2006). Developing

6
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

fluency also requires that the reader have exposure to material that allows them to experience
success and the opportunity to hear themselves read without stumbling. Providing students with
engaging reading material that is within their instructional range, which matches their ability in
terms of the length and vocabulary, aides in the development of oral reading fluency (Lock &
Welsch, 2006). Text with predictable or repetitive language has also been found to support
fluency development (Lock & Welsch, 2006). Too often, struggling readers are required to read
material at a level of frustration which impedes the development of fluency (Allington, 1983).
Successful readers, alternatively, are often exposed to reading material that is easy for them, thus
facilitating the development of fluency (Allington, 1983).
While studies in the area of reading fluency have been sparse compared to other
components of the reading process, quality interventions have been identified in the research
which have proven effective in building reading fluency. These have been organized into four
categories: modeling, assisted/guided oral reading instruction, practice and word study.
Skilled readers who read effortlessly and with expression are modeling effective reading
for those students who struggle with fluency (Lock & Welsch, 2006). Teachers who are
deliberate and intentional when modeling reading, drawing attention to how they read, teach
students the importance of conveying meaning through expression (Rasiniski, 1974). Modeling,
employed daily as a strategy both at home and at school, will provide struggling readers with an
example of how fluent reading sounds. Audio recordings of the text can be utilized for modeling
where the student listens to the audio model while following along in the text and then reads the
passage independently. Alternatively, the student may read along with the audio model (Lock &
Welsch, 2006). Peers can also model reading proficiency in a small group setting. Unfortunately,
poor readers are often placed in reading groups with other poor readers and do not have the

7
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

benefit of hearing a model of effective fluent reading (Allington, 1983; Rasiniski, 1974).
Teachers, as well as school psychologists, must be deliberate in the selection of students for
reading groups to ensure each group includes a model of fluent reading.
Assisted or guided fluency instruction can include choral reading, peer reading, echo
reading or audio assisted reading. Peer reading is a form of supported reading involving the
deliberate pairing of a fluent reader and a dysfluent reader. The pair reads together while the
more fluent reader adjusts their reading pace to match that of their partner and provides
corrective feedback, thus providing support while the struggling reader maintains a sense of
control over the reading process (Rasinski, 1974).
Choral reading, an example of assisted or guided fluency instruction, has been shown to
improve oral reading fluency in struggling readers (Rasinski, 1974). This strategy involves a
group or class of students reading a passage simultaneously. Students are hearing fluency while
they read which helps internalize the sound of fluent reading (Rasinski, 1974). Similarly, the
Neurological Impress Method, provides an opportunity for the student hear fluent reading as the
teacher reads at a slightly faster pace than the student or Echo reading, in which the teacher
reads a line or passage while the student follows along with the text followed by the student
rereading the same text (Wendling & Mather, 2009).
Students who struggle with fluency require frequent exposure to text and opportunities to
practice reading. Interventions that provide this necessary practice include: repeated readings,
previewing and computer assisted reading. Just as athletes and musicians have the opportunity
to practice basic skills and gradually work to increase speed, so too must readers be given the
opportunity to build reading speed through the use of repeated reading (Samuels, 1979).

8
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

Repeated readings have been proven in the research as an effective strategy to build fluency in
struggling readers (Begeny & Martens, 2006; Lock & Welsch, 2006; Mastropieri, Leinart &
Scruggs, 1999; Samuels, 1979; Therrien, 2004; Welsch, R., 2007; Wendling & Mather, 2009).
This method involves teachers selecting short but meaningful passages at the students
instructional level. The student has the opportunity to practice reading the passage until a
predetermined level of fluency is reached ( # of words per minute or a specified # of times). The
role of the teacher is to listen to the student read, record the reading time as well as reading errors
and assist students with troublesome words or vocabulary. Repeated readings emphasize reading
speed over accuracy in order to build confidence and motivate the reader. Repeated readings
offer many benefits, making it an effective intervention. It will not only benefit struggling
readers but all students in the general classroom. The simple procedure allows for classroom
aides or volunteers to implement this strategy, leaving the teacher to continue with whole group
instruction. While the main goal of repeated readings is to build fluency, an improvement in
comprehension also occurs with each reading as challenge of decoding decreases (Samuels,
1979).
Previewing reading material with the purpose of preteaching key words is an effective
strategy to improve both the fluency and comprehension of students with reading difficulties
(Begeny & Martens, 2006; Burns, Dean & Foley, 2004). Previewing can take a variety of forms,
for example, listening to the passage read and following silently prior to reading independently
(Begeny & Martens, 2006); a prepractice preview where students read the assigned selection
either aloud or silently prior to the lesson (Lock & Welsch, 2006).Previewing increases the time
a student interacts with the reading material and exposes (them) to the vocabulary, phrasing and
context before reading the text themselves (Lock & Welsch, 2006).

9
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

Computer- assisted reading , used as an intervention, provides an alternate format for

practicing reading skills. Programs and websites geared to specific age levels can provide
immediate feedback, appeal to visual learners and motivate students (Lock & Welsch, 2006).
Finally, when it comes to improving the automaticity of readers, Samuels suggests
teaching sight word recognition for accuracy as well as providing time and motivation for
students to practice basic skills until they are automatic (Samuels, 1979). Strategies can include
flashcard practice, sight word bingo, speed drills and word walls.
While much of the research into interventions which improve oral reading fluency
involve a single strategy used with individual students, recent research focuses on group-based
interventions in order to build fluency (Begeny & Martens, 2006). Individual interventions are
often time consuming for teachers with their already limited resources and do not reflect the
current trend toward inclusivity in education. Begeny & Martens suggest a treatment package
involving repeated readings, passage previewing and phrase drilling. While repeated readings
and passage previewing have been previously outlined, phase drilling involves practicing errors
within phrases rather than simply practicing the word error in isolation (Lock &Welsch, 2006).
Begeny & Martens concluded that this combination of strategies includes a variety of
instructional components with the added benefit of attending to many student needs at once
(Begeny & Martens, 2006).
Marr & Dugan propose a model to improve fluency using fluency coaches. Here, peer
partners are chosen for struggling readers and are provided with specific guidelines for modeling
fluency, providing feedback and charting the progress of their partner. Reading material in the

10
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

form of short, leveled passages, are carefully chosen for the students independent reading level
and provide support through scaffolding (Marr & Dugan, 2007).
Read Naturally, another example of a program to support struggling readers, improves
fluency and motivates students. Incorporating three empirically supported techniques: reading
from a model, repeated readings, and progress monitoring, the Read Naturally program can be
student directed, only involving the teacher in one of the three steps (Hasbrouck, Ihnot & Rogers,
1999).
While the interventions outlined here represent research-based interventions for students
who struggle with reading fluency, it is important to ask the question: do these interventions meet
the best practices criteria outlined by Upah & Tilly for quality interventions? To address this
question, it is necessary to discuss Upah & Tillys best practices criteria.
According to Upah & Tilly, interventions are defined as a set of procedures and
strategies designed to improve student performance with the intent of reducing the students
problems (Upah & Tilly, 2002). Twelve quality indicators are outlined which fall into four
categories: problem identification, problem analysis, plan implementation and problem
evaluation. Upah & Tilly describe a shift in the practice of school psychologists, which expands
the role beyond that of problem identification and analysis to include deeper analysis of why the
problem is occurring and developing a plan for implementation and evaluation. Fundamental to
plan implementation is setting goals for the student, establishing a plan for achieving that goal,
determining the effectiveness of the plan and making decisions based on whether the plan has
been effective or not. Plan development must include specific guidelines regarding the roles of
those individuals involved, the frequency and location of the interventions and the steps to

11
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

follow in the implementation of the plan. Upah & Tilly highlight the importance of plan clarity
and warn against the use of generic descriptions of interventions.
If we hold the interventions for reading fluency previously described against the best
practices outlined in Upah & Tillys research, they fall short. Interventions alone, despite
research to support their effectiveness, cannot truly meet the needs of struggling students in the
absence of a process to plan, implement and monitor their usefulness. Providing interventions
alone is a risk where the students success is left to chance. How can the school psychologist be
certain that the interventions have been implemented in the classroom? Are they working or does
the student continue to struggle? Is implementation consistent? Though modeling, practice, word
study and assisted/guided oral reading instruction are quality interventions in and of themselves,
it is the process through which these interventions will be implemented that will truly determine
their effectiveness.

12
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

REFERENCES
Allington, R. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36, 6, 556
561. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20198272
Begeny, J., Martens, B. (2006). Assisting low-performing readers with a group based reading
fluency intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 1, 91-107. Retrieved from
www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/pdf/spr351begeny.pdf
Fuchs, L.; Fuchs, D. ; Hosp, M.K.; & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator
of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 5:3, 239-256. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
Hasbrouck, J., Ihnot, C., Rogers, G. (1999). Read Naturally: A strategy to increase oral reading
fluency. Reading Research & Instruction, 39:1, 27-37. doi: 10.1080/19388079909558310
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
Lock, R. & Welsch, R. (2006). 20 Ways to increase oral reading fluency. Intervention in School
& Clinic, 41: 180. doi: 10.1177/10534512060410030901
Marr, M.B., Dugan, K. (2007). Using partners to build reading fluency. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children & Youth. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.51.2.52-55

13
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

Mastropieri, M., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluency.
intervention in school and clinic, 34, 278-283. doi: 10.1177/105345129903400504
Rasinski, T. (1974). The Fluent Reader: Oral Reading Strategies for Building Word Recognition,
Fluency, and Comprehension. NY: Scholastic.
Samuels, S. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 4, 403-408.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20194790
Therrien, W. (2004). Fluency & comprehension gains as a result of repeated readings: A
metaanalysis. Remedial & Special Education, 25:252. doi:
1177/07419325040250040801
Torgesen, J. & Hudson, R. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. In
Samuels, S.J & Farstrup, A. (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Fluency
Instruction (pp. 130-157). International Reading Association, Inc.
Upah, K. & Tilly, D.W. (2002). Best practices in designing, implementing, and evaluating quality
interventions. In Thomas, A. & Grimes, J. (Eds), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 483501). Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications.
Welsch, R.G. (2007). Using experimental analysis to determine interventions for reading fluency
and recalls of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30 (2),
115-129. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30035546
Wendling, B.J., Mather, N. (2009). Essentials of evidence-based academic interventions.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

14
QUALITY INTERVENTIONS FOR READING FLUENCY

Wilson, J.K. (2011). Brisk and effective fluency instruction for small groups. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 47(3), 152-157. doi: 10.1177/1053451211423817
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 5 (3), 211-239. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2