Reading fluency and reading difficulties

With fluency being identified as a significant factor in reading development and a key to reading comprehension, there is the need to assess and monitor reading fluency in order to diagnose difficulties and help learners make progress in learning to read (Rasinski, 2004a). Rasinski (2004a) argues that the three dimensions of oral reading fluency, i.e. decoding accuracy, word recognition automaticity, and prosody, can be assessed efficiently, with appropriate levels of reliability and validity. The approach to be used for measuring the first two dimensions (decoding accuracy and automaticity) is Oral Reading Fluency assessment,

119 which measures the reading rate in oral reading of the text at grade appropriate level, while the rate is the total number of words read correctly in 60 seconds (WCPM = words correct per minute) (Rasinski, 2004a). Accuracy is determined by dividing WCPM by the total number of words read, thus getting a percentage which should be compared to levels of performance expressed in percentages: readers who score 97-100 per cent are considered independent readers, able to read the assessment text and texts of similar difficulty without assistance; readers who score 90-96 per cent reach instructional level and are able to read the assessment text or texts of similar difficulty with some assistance of a more able reader; finally, readers who score below 90 per cent read at frustration level and find the assessment text or texts of similar difficulty too challenging to read, even with assistance (Rasinski, 2004a). For measuring accuracy, the reader is supposed to read the text at his or her grade level orally and the following errors should be recorded: mispronunciations, substitutions, reversals, omissions and teacher prompts (Rasinski, 2004a). One-minute reading can optionally be repeated with a child reading a different passage. The target rate norms differ for each grade and time of year, increasing from autumn to spring (Rasinski, 2004a). For example, a Fifth grader “should be reading approximately 100-125 words correct per minute during the first half of the school year” (Rasinski, 2004b, p. 49). Rasinski (2004a) defines disfluent readers as those who either read “in a very slow and disjointed manner“ or “too fast and fail to pay attention to intra- and inter-sentential boundaries or the meaning of the text” (p. 9), so by measuring accuracy, it is possible to determine reading fluency difficulties with precision. Comprehension difficulties may appear if a reader reads “with high accuracy but low rate scores” or “with a high rate but excessive decoding errors,” and the sources of their comprehension difficulties may be different, i.e. the former experiencing a lack of sufficient automaticity, and the latter having a lack of sufficient decoding accuracy (Rasinski, 2004a, p. 10). This method of assessment, though not definitive, is successful in diagnosing children

120 with reading difficulties/struggling readers who might need additional support and instruction (Rasinski, 2004b).

The errors made in oral reading are often referred to as miscues, to avoid “the negative connotation and history of the term error in first- and second-language research and language education” (Goodman, 1998, p. 227). Goodman (1973) defines a miscue as “an actual observed response in oral reading which does not match the expected response” (p. 5). The author maintains that miscues in reading are not accidental and they can, therefore, tell a lot about the reading process and how the reader is trying to understand the text he or she is reading (Goodman, 1973). The miscues the reader makes, like omitting a word or some word parts, inserting a word, substituting a word, going back to correct himself or herself, make it possible to make inferences about the process he or she has used, and about his or her competence with that process: the reader’s strenghts and/or weaknesses (Goodman, 1973). The reading research tool focused on miscues is miscue analysis, used in reading research since 1963 as a diagnostic tool which can give information about the proficiency of the reader. Miscue analysis involves the study of the reader’s “use of graphic, phonological, syntactic, and semantic information” (Goodman, 1973, p. 4) and gives an insight into his or her “construction of meaning and the process of comprehension,” (Goodman & Goodman, 1998, p. 107) as well as into the pattern of comprehension strategies he or she uses. Miscue analysis enables the researcher to examine the “syntactic nature of the miscues, the points in the text where miscues occur, and the syntactic acceptability of sentences that include miscues” (Goodman & Goodman, 1998, p. 111), and also “provides evidence that readers integrate cueing systems from the earliest initial attempts at reading” by using graphophonic, semantic, syntactic and pragmatic information to make predictions, confirm and self-correct while reading (p. 114). Goodman and Goodman (1998) point to another insight resulting from miscue analysis: understanding that “miscues are necessary to language learning” as the

121 results of schemata development and modification, a schema being understood as “an organized cognitive structure of related knowledge, ideas, emotions, and actions that has been internalized and that guides and controls a person's use of subsequent information and response to experience;” when miscues are corrected, some schemata may have to be modified or completely abandoned (pp. 115-116).

Miscue analysis has contributed to understanding of some general characteristics of comprehension process in relation to text length: it is easier to understand long language sequences than short ones, i.e. “sentences are easier than words, paragraphs easier than sentences, pages easier than paragraphs, and stories easier than pages” (Goodman & Goodman, 1998, p. 122). Goodman and Goodman (1998) explain that one reason for this is the need of the reader to become familiar with the style and the topic of the text, and when the text is short there are not enough syntactic (style) and semantic (topic) cues for the reader to rely on; another reason is the fact that miscues are more disruptive in a short text, while a long text gives the reader more opportunities to self-correct. Miscue analysis can be used for determining the reader’s ‘comprehending score’, which is represented by all miscues which result in acceptable meaning added to all miscues which result in unacceptable meaning, but are corrected by the reader successfully, and expresses as a percentage of all miscues; it is a measure of the quality of the reader's miscues, as it is not important how many miscues a reader has made, but how they affect the meaning, and of “the reader's ability to keep his focus successfully on meaning” (Goodman, 1973, p. 10). Goodman (1998) distinguishes between high quality miscues anfd low quality miscues: the former are semantically and syntactically acceptable and do not interfere with comprehension (the sentence makes sense), while the latter are not are semantically and syntactically acceptable and they interfere with comprehension.

122 There are several conditions to be fulfilled when using miscue analysis as a tool. Goodman and Goodman (1998) contend that in taking the running record the text must be new to the reader and complete (with a beginning, middle, and end); then, it must be “long and challenging enough to produce sufficient numbers of miscues for patterns to appear;” also, readers must not receive any help and must not be interrupted, and if they “hesitate for more than 30 seconds, they are urged to guess, and only if hesitation continues are they told to keep reading even if it means skipping a word or phrase;” finally, the reading during miscue analysis requires as normal a situation as possible (p. 103). The researcher should note all “miscues, regressions (including self-corrections), oral asides, any other behavior that will aid in understanding the reading (e.g., finger pointing or careful perusal of illustrations or graphs)” (Goodman, 1998, pp. 228-229). Drawing from research evidence, Goodman and Goodman (1998) argue that oral and silent reading are similar enough “to justify generalizing from studies of oral reading miscues to theories and models of silent reading;” the authors see similarities in language cueing systems, in strategies, in miscues, and in construction of meaning, concluding that “a single process underlies all reading” (pp. 120-121). However, the differences are reflected in the reader’s consciousness of the audience when reading orally, resulting in miscues like “nonword substitutions, persistence with several attempts at problem spots, overt regression to correct miscues already mentally corrected, and deliberate adjustments in ensuing text to cover miscues so that listeners will not notice them” as well as “deliberate omission of unfamiliar words, reluctance to attempt correction even though meaning is disrupted, and avoidance of overtly making corrections that have taken place silently to avoid calling attention to miscues” (Goodman & Goodman, 1998, p. 121).

There is a number of suggestions for coding miscue categories in taking running records. Rasinski (2004a) proposes five different categories: 1. mispronunciations; 2. substitutions; 3. reversals; 4. omissions; 5. teacher prompts. Pinnell et al. (1995) discussed

123 oral fluency of Fourth graders and found three key types of deviations in oral reading: 1. substitutions, involving only substitutions of whole words, then partial word omissions and substitutions of prefixes and suffixes; 2. omissions, involving omissions of whole words; 3. insertions, involving whole word insertions. Pinnel et al. (1995) reported research findings that suggested that comprehension was more impacted with deviations that changed meaning, which stressed the importance of word recognition and reading accuracy.

The third dimension of fluency is prosody, which involves four areas: 1. expression and volume; 2. phrasing; 3. smoothness; 4. pace (Rasinski, 2004b. Rasinski (2004b) argues that fast reading is not necessarily fluent reading, but rather meaningful reading can be considered fluent. For measuring prosody, Rasinski (2004b) suggests using a multidimensional fluency scale with descriptors for each of the four levels for all four components of prosody, the maximum score being 16, and scores below 8 being a reson for concern. Regarding expression and volume, concern should be caused when a reader reads words quietly, with no expression or any making sense of them; in regard to phrasing, concern should be caused if a child reads in monotone, word-by-word, with little sense of sentence boundaries; in respect of smoothness, concern should be caused if a child often makes pauses, hesitates, repeats words or phrases or tries to sound them out several times; finally, regarding pace, concern should be caused if a child’ reading is slow and laborious (Rasinski, 2004b). Pinnell et al. (1995) argue that accuracy and speed are the key components of reading fluency, so “[i]f readers have too much difficulty recognizing and reading individual words, their ability to gain overall meaning from a passage will be seriously hampered” (p. 33) primarily because the pause made for figuring out/decoding the unfamiliar words disrupts comprehension of the text as a whole.

Rasinski (2004a) contends that severe restriction of exposure to print in early grades results in lack of fluency and in delay in developing “a sufficient bank of words that are

124 recognized and understood at sight” (p. 12). In case of English language learners, learners’ growth in reading may be impeded by vocabulary and language proficiency issues, so reading rate should be used with caution when assessing L2 readers, taking into account the fact that “developing proficiency in reading is a cumulative task” (Rasinski, 2004a, p. 12), accumulating from the early grades on. Since oral reading proficiency rates are closely associated with silent reading comprehension success, assessment of expressive and prosodic reading should be considered as “a reliable and valid way for assessing overall reading performance” (Rasinski, 2004a, p. 16). Rasinski (2004a), therefore, suggests using a simple form of an oral reading fluency scale for assessing prosodic reading as a way of formative assessment that can guide instructional intervention: learner’s expressiveness, volume, phrasing, smoothness and pace are rated on a four-level scale, scores being one to four. Table 2.4 presents the four levels of oral reading fluency.

Table 2.4: Levels of oral reading fluency (based on Rasinski, 2004a)

Level Fluency desriptors

Level 1 – Inexperienced Reader

• little expression • word-by-word reading

• no smooth or expressive interpretation

Level 2 –

Beginning Reader • mostly two-word phrase _{• with occasional three- and four-word groupings; no smooth or}

expressive interpretation

Level 3 –

Developing Reader • smooth expressive reading _{• with some appropriate pauses and observation of punctuation}

primarily three or four word phrase groups

Level 4 –

Mature Reader • smooth expressive reading _{• emphasizing key words and phrases}

125 Scores one and two indicate reading difficulties: score one means that a child reads mainly word-by-word, with occasional two- or three-word phrases, not preserving meaningful syntax, lacking expressive interpretation, excessively slowly or fast, ignoring punctuation and phrase boundaries, while score two means that a child reads mainly in two- word phrases, with some three- and four-word phrases not related to context, and with word- by-word portions or expressive interpretation portions, and with some excessively slow or fast sections of the text; on the other hand, scores three and four indicate fluent reading: score three means that a child reads mainly in three- and four-word (and some smaller) phrases, at an appropriate rate, with appropriate expressiveness and preserving the syntax of the author, while score four means that the child reads mainly in larger and meaningful phrases, at an appropriate rate, with consistent preservation of the author’s syntax, with expressive interpretation, though some deviations may be present. Pinnell et al. (1995) also point out the fact that “[m]aintaining a steady rate of reading can be central to the process of comprehending” (p. 33), thus indicating the importance of keeping an appropriate speed in oral reading.

Distinguishing between fluent and difficult reading is crucial for understanding reading difficulties. Neither modes of reading is typical only of beginning readers or of experienced readers, because both groups can read some texts fluently and some texts with difficulty: it is possible to find texts that even beginning readers can read fluently, or the texts that even experienced readers cannot read without difficulty (Smith, 2004). Smith (2004) argues that it is experience that increases a reader’s ability to read different kinds of texts, i.e. “the more we read, the more we are able to read,” making fluency development a lifelong process (p. 189). Fluent reading requires “knowledge of the conventions of the text, from vocabulary and grammar to the narrative devices employed” depending on purposes of the reader (Smith 2004, p. 189). Difficulties in reading may be the result not only of undeveloped

126 reading ability, but also of an unusual style in which the text is written, or anxiety related to reading, and can be experienced both by beginning and experienced readers (Smith, 2004). Thus, it is lack of reading experience that makes reading difficult in certain situations; for children, who are learning to read, “everything they might attempt to read is likely to be difficult” (Smith, 2004, p. 189).

It is now understood that oral and silent reading are not competing, but are rather complementary forms of reading “that reflect students' developmental growth as readers,” and should be present in the classrooms “in developmentally responsive ways: oral, repeated reading with younger, less proficient readers and silent, wide reading with older, more proficient readers” (Hiebert & Ray, 2014, p. 291). Generally speaking, “the basic mode of reading is silent” (Goodman & Goodman, 1998, p. 120), but oral reading provides teachers with a means for monitoring children’s progress and obtaining “a window for understanding struggling students' knowledge and use of underlying systems of written language” (Hiebert & Ray, 2014, p. 292). What is more, oral reading provides young EFL readers with opportunities to exhibit their new abilities as L2 readers. Rasinski (2004a) points out that “student oral reading will have an impact on their silent reading” as an internal voice that develops both through oral and silent reading opportunities (p. 15). Today, due to the digital age “in which the selection, evaluation, and interpretation of information is paramount” (Hiebert & Ray, 2014, p. 291), silent reading is gaining importance. Moreover, since some studies indicate that sustained silent reading (SSR) improves motivation, background knowledge, vocabulary and reading comprehension, developing fluency in silent reading should be one of the goals of reading instruction (Hairrell et al., 2014). However, building independent silent reading skills with children with reading difficulties can be a challenging task both for the English teacher and the learner, who needs a lot of scaffolding (Hairrell et al., 2014). Therefore, children usually do not get enough opportunity for such development,

127 while teachers have a difficult task to measure the effects of silent reading development or check reading comprehension of silent reading, especially in case of learners with reading difficulties. Research of silent reading with learners with reading difficulties is rare, and in the past it focused on “the relationship between time spent reading silently and reading comprehension outcomes” (Hairrell et al., 2014, p. 279).

Although silent reading was regarded as “one of the most effective practices for promoting ELs' English print literacy,” its popularity suddenly dropped in the United States of America when the National Reading Panel found that research results related to benefits of silent reading were unconvincing (Ockey & Ray, 2014, p. 258). Many researchers concluded later that it was a wrong decision based on false interpretation of research results, which has brought the revival of silent reading in the classroom. However, there are still no trusting research techniques to measure the effect of silent reading on reading comprehension and fluency. Using brief oral reading, in which a learner is required to read aloud for one minute, is not an adequate technique because “one cannot assume that a short, oral reading of a lengthy text is likely to be representative of students' accuracy or reading rate when engaged in lengthy periods of silent text reading” (Ockey & Ray, 2014, p. 262). Moreover, since oral reading requires verbal skills, like pronunciation, a learner may make mistakes due to difficulty in pronouncing some English words, especially in early stages of learning to read in English (Ockey & Ray, 2014). Ockey and Ray (2014) argue that the reader’s “failure to read aloud accurately does not necessarily imply a lack of reading comprehension during silent reading” and that occasional miscues are not typical of unsuccessful readers only, but may appear in oral reading of skilled readers because they are not caused by cognitive or metacognitive processes and thus do not impair comprehension (p. 262). Pinnell et al. (1995) also contend that deviations made in oral reading do not necessarily have a negative influence on comprehension, and they comment on the research results arguing that “making errors when reading orally may have been only minimally related to overall reading proficiency,

128 unless the errors resulted in some disruption to the meaning-making process in which case, a more direct relationship was observed” (p. 37), thus indicating the complexity of the relationship between oral reading accuracy and reading proficiency.

In respect to measuring silent reading comprehension, Ockey and Ray (2014) criticise some current ways of assessing silent reading comprehension of English L2 learners: self- assessment, in which can-do statements are used, probed recall, where comprehension questions are used, and free recall, in which readers are asked to retell orally the text previously read silently (the technique favoured for assessing young language learners). Ockey and Ray (2014) warn that “silent reading is a cognitive activity not easily accessed through behavioral observations” and conclude that the above ways of measuring silent reading comprehension should be regarded as limited until neuroscience offers more reliable