The Fluency to Comprehension Connection Joseph K. Torgesen

The Fluency to Comprehension Connection Joseph K. Torgesen Florida State University and the Eastern Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center Iowa Reading First, December, 2005

Examine the relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension by focusing on three questions: 1. How useful are measures of reading fluency in identifying students who are “at risk” for performing below grade level on measures of reading comprehension? 2. What is the causal connection between reading fluency and reading comprehension? What evidence do we have that there is a causal connection? What mechanisms or skills mediate that connection? 3. What advice can we give to teachers about effective ways to increase reading fluency so that students scores on measures of reading comprehension are likely to improve as a result?

Why is it important for us all to acquire more knowledge and understanding about these questions? 1. Measures of reading fluency are being used in a very large number of states in Reading First as one of the primary indicators of early reading growth. 2. Reading Fluency has been identified as one of the five major components of reading growth that should be the focus of instruction and assessment in grades K-3 3. Many programs are currently being promoted and used for the specific purpose of increasing reading fluency—and the goal of these programs is not just to increase reading fluency, but also to increase students ability to comprehend complex text.

Examine the relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension with a view toward more fully understanding the answers to three questions: 1. How useful are measures of reading fluency in identifying students who are “at risk” for performing below grade level on measures of reading comprehension? 2. What is the causal connection between reading fluency and reading comprehension? What evidence do we have that there is a causal connection? What mechanisms or skills mediate that connection? 3. What advice can we give to teachers about effective ways to increase reading fluency so that students scores on measures of reading comprehension are likely to improve as a result?

The most common way of assessing reading fluency is to ask students to read a passage of grade level text orally and count the number of words the student reads correctly in a defined period of time. The time period for assessment is typically one minute. Provides a reliable assessment of fluency one passage – in low .90’s three passages with median – mid to high .90’s Oral reading fluency shows steady growth as children acquire reading skills during 1st through 3rd grade

27 WPM 33 WPM 45 WPM Correct Words per Minute on Grade Level Text 120 110 100 90 80 Correct Words per Minute 70 60 50 40 Good, Wallin, Simmons, Kame’enui, & Kaminski, 2002 30 20 W S F W SF W S 1st Grade 2nd Grade3rd Grade

The most common way of assessing reading fluency is to ask students to read a passage of grade level text orally and count the number of words the student reads correctly in a defined period of time. The time period for assessment is typically one minute. Provides a reliable assessment of fluency one passage – in low .90’s three passages with median – mid to high .90’s Oral reading fluency shows steady growth as children acquire reading skills during 1st through 3rd grade Oral reading fluency measures are strongly related to reading comprehension in grades 1,2, 3

Correlations range from about .50 to .90, with most falling around .70. The strength of the relationship depends upon such things as: The measure of reading comprhension

N=218 R=.76

N=218 R=.56

Correlations range from about .50 to .90, with most falling around .70. The strength of the relationship depends upon such things as: The measure of reading comprhension Age/grade level of students – r with SAT10 1st grade r = .79 2nd grade r = .70 3rd grade r = .69

These correlations indicate that performance on brief measures of oral reading fluency is strongly correlated with performance on measures of reading comprehension. However, they don’t tell us directly how useful the ORF measures actually are in identifying students likely to struggle on comprehension measures It turns out that ORF measures have high predictive utility for identifying students likely to struggle on “high stakes” or formal measures of reading comprehension

86 81 90 62 46 Orf > 110 Orf > 90 35 Orf from 70 to 89 Orf > 40 23 Orf from 80 to 109 12 <69 <79 Orf from 20 to 39 <19 5 Approximately 30,000 RF students at each grade level Hi risk Moderate Risk Low Risk 90 80 70 60 Percent at or above 40th percentile on SAT10 50 40 30 20 10 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade

Teaching Reading is Urgent 88% of students who met the end of first grade ORF goal met or exceeded Oregon’s State Benchmark Test. Similar correlations have been found for CO, IA, FL, and PA. Performance at the end of first grade strongly predicts performance on third grade high stakes test.

Some definitions of reading fluency “the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading, such as decoding” (Meyer and Felton (1999, p. 284).

Five common methods for identifying words in text (Ehri, 1999) 1. By sounding out and blending graphemes into phonemes to form recognizable words (decoding) 2. By pronouncing common spelling patters as chunks (a more advanced form of decoding) 3. By retrieving words from memory. Such words are referred to as “sight words.” Retrieval happens quickly and effortlessly with practice 4. By analogizing to words already known by sight 5. By predicting words from context

Five common methods for identifying words in text (Ehri, 1999) 1. By sounding out and blending graphemes into phonemes to form recognizable words (decoding) 2. By pronouncing common spelling patters as chunks (a more advanced form of decoding) 3. By retrieving words from memory. Such words are referred to as “sight words.” Retrieval happens quickly and effortlessly with practice 4. By analogizing to words already known by sight 5. By predicting words from context Although all these methods for reading words become more fluent with practice, fluency increases most dramatically as more words become identifiable “by sight.”

The Fluency Challenge….. “One of the great mysteries to challenge researchers is how people learn to read and comprehend text rapidly and with ease. A large part of the explanation lies in how they learn to read individual words. Skilled readers are able to look at thousands of words and immediately recognize their meanings without any effort.” Ehri, L. C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. In R. Stainthorp and P. Tomlinson (Eds.) Learning and teaching reading. London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II.

December, 3rd Grade Correct word/minute=60 19th percentile The Surprise Party My dad had his fortieth birthday last month, so my mom planned a big surprise party for him. She said I could assist with the party but that I had to keep the party a secret. She said I couldn’t tell my dad because that would spoil the surprise. I helped mom organize the guest list and write the invitations. I was responsible for making sure everyone was included. I also addressed all the envelopes and put stamps and return addresses on them…..

December, 3rd Grade Correct word/minute=128 78th percentile The Surprise Party My dad had his fortieth birthday last month, so my mom planned a big surprise party for him. She said I could assist with the party but that I had to keep the party a secret. She said I couldn’t tell my dad because that would spoil the surprise. I helped mom organize the guest list and write the invitations. I was responsible for making sure everyone was included. I also addressed all the envelopes and put stamps and return addresses on them…..

Some definitions of reading fluency “the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading, such as decoding” (Meyer and Felton (1999, p. 284). “freedom from word recognition problems that might hinder comprehension” (Literacy Dictionary, Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 85). “Fluency is the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with proper expression” National Reading Panel, 2000 “Fluency involves accurate reading at a minimal rate with appropriate prosodic features (expression) and deep understanding” Hudson, Mercer, and Lane (2000, p. 16).

If comprehension is included as part of the definition of fluency, then questions about the causal relationships between fluency and comprehension disappear However, when we assess ORF, we do not directly assess comprehension, we assess rate of reading The question we address here is whether there are causal relationships between the processes that contribute to individual differences in oral reading rate and the processes that are required for good performance on measures of reading comprehension

Within current reading theory, we can identify two major ways that individual differences in ORF (as it is commonly measured) might be related causally to individual differences in reading comprehension Efficient, or automatic, identification of words allows the reader to focus more attention on the meaning of the passage Comprehension processes themselves may cause individual differences in reading rate. These comprehension processes influence both fluency and comprehension tasks.

The idea that automatic word recognition processes make it possible to focus more attentional resources on comprehension was initially popularized by the work of LaBerge and Samuals (1974) They developed a model of reading with the concept of automaticity as one of its central features 1. A complex skill like reading requires the rapid and efficient coordination of many processes 2. If enough processes are executed automatically, then the attentional load remains within tolerable limits. 3. Word identification processes are more likely to become automatic than comprehension processes

“In fact, the automaticity with which skillful readers recognize words is the key to the whole system…The reader’s attention can be focused on the meaning and message of a text only to the extent that it’s free from fussing with the words and letters.” Marilyn Adams

Why is fluency important? Because it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension.

“Fluency, it seems, serves as a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Because when fluent readers are able to identify words accurately and automatically, they can focus most of their attention on comprehension. They can make connections among the ideas in the text and between the text and their background knowledge. In other words, fluent readers can recognize words and comprehend at the same time. Less fluent readers, however, must focus much of their attention on word recognition…The result is that non-fluent readers have little attention to devote to comprehension” (Osborn, Lehr, and Hiebert, 2003)

The Evidence: When reading rate is increased through the use of repeated reading techniques, comprehension also increases (16 studies-NRP report) Effect size for fluency = .44 Effect size for comprehension = .35 Problem: a variety of techniques were actually mixed together in these findings A more recent meta-analysis focusing only on repeated reading studies reported these effect sizes (THERRIEN, 2004) Effect size for fluency = .50 Effect size for comprehension= .25 Problem: processes other than word reading efficiency might be enhanced by repeated reading practice

The Evidence (cont.): What we need is evidence that practice that focuses solely on increasing word reading efficiency can also increase text reading fluency and reading comprehension Can practice specifically targeted on word reading efficiency improve fluency and comprehension?

animal faster happy never time sleep rabbit What do we mean by context-free practice?:

The Evidence (cont.): Recently, Levy, Abello, and Lysnchuk(1997) reported a carefully controlled study with 4th grade poor readers in which context free practice to increase speed of word identification positively affected both fluency and comprehension Critical features 1. intensive fluency practice-every word recognized in less than 1 seconds 2. Used long stories that places particular demands on fluency 3. Stories were at the appropriate level of difficulty for each student

To summarize: Increasing rate through repeated reading practice also increases comprehension There has been at least one demonstration that increasing rate through isolated word practice can increase reading comprehension

Across these definitions of fluency, we can identify two major ways that individual differences in ORF might be related causally to individual differences in reading comprehension Efficient identification of words allow a focus on the meaning of the passage Comprehension processes themselves may contribute to individual differences in reading rate. These comprehension processes are shared between fluency and comprehension tasks.

The Evidence: Comprehension is occurring for most students as they read the words on ORF passages. Although students remember more of the content from ORF stories if prompted to remember, they do remember a significant amount with only a cue to “do their best reading” (O’Shea, Sindelar, & O’Shea, 1987) There is experimental evidence to indicate that comprehension processes (identifying anaphoric referents, integrating propositions in text with background knowledge, inferencing) can also become automatized with reading practice. (Perfetti, 1995) This means they can occur without the specific “intention to comprehend.”

The Evidence: How could automatically occurring comprehension processes affect rate of reading on ORF tasks? There is experimental evidence for fast acting, automatic spreading of semantic activation thast does not consume attention resources…words are primed for easier recognition (Posner & Snyder, 1975).

The Evidence: Jenkins, et al., (2003) asked 113 4th grade students with a broad range of reading ability to perform three tasks: 1. ORF following standard (best reading) cue. 2. ORF with words in passage arranged in random order in a list 3. ITBS reading comprehension test

The Evidence: WPM Text = 127 WPM List = 83 Processes unique to reading meaningful text supported more fluent reading of words – spreading activation based on comprehension facilitates fluency – is one possibility Correlation with ITBS Text = .83 List = .53 Test format that allowed comprehension processes (presumably operating in both ORF and comprehension test) to influence rate led to higher correlation – word reading that is influenced by comprehension is more correlated with comprehension than just word reading efficiency alone

Conclusions: 1. Both single word identification processes and comprehension processes contribute to individual differences in oral reading fluency for text a. At the lower end of the ORF continuum, word reading efficiency makes a stronger unique contribution in explaining variance in fluency b.At the higher end of the ORF continuum, comprehension processes make a stronger unique contribution to explaining variance in fluency.

Automatic comprehension processes Single word reading efficiency Individual Differences in Oral Reading Fluency are influenced by different factors, depending on level of fluency 2nd 16th 50th 84th 98th Standard Scores

Conclusions (cont.): ORF is correlated with reading comprehension because 1. Both ORF and reading comprehension depend to some extent on efficiency of single word reading processes 2. Both ORF speed and reading comprehension scores are influenced to some extent by the efficiency of comprehension processes that facilitate performance on both tasks

Reading Processes measured by ORF facilitate performance on tests of Reading Comprehension Next question: Are the two causal connections the only reason that ORF is related to performance on tests of reading comprehension? A reminder about correlations A can be correlated with B because: A causes B (good reading rate enables comp.) B causes A (comp. enables good reading rate) Both A and B are caused by C (comp. and rate are both influenced by experience)

Fluency can be correlated with comprehension because individual differences in both skills are caused by differences in: Reading experience Home environment and support Motivation to succeed in school Fluency Reading Experience Reading comprehension through vocabulary increases Fluency Motivation to succeed in school Reading comprehension through development of reading strategies

Total R2 = 71% N=218 ORF R=.76 Vocab R = .69 NVR R = .48 Mem R = .35 Common = 43.5% ORF = 18.9% Vocab = 7.1% NVR = 1.2% Mem = .3%

ORF Unique R = .43

What is the practical meaning of these analyses in terms of the potential impact of interventions that increase just reading fluency If we based our estimate of the impact of these interventions on the raw correlation between ORF and comprehension, we would expect: A 10 WPM gain on ORF would produce a 12.5 point gain on the FCAT If we controlled for the joint, and shared, contribution of vocabulary, nonverbal reasoning, and memory, we would expect: 10 WPM gain on ORF would produce an 8.6 point gain on the FCAT

Conclusions from analysis of causal relations between ORF and reading comprehension: Interventions that focus directly on increasing oral reading fluency are likely to have an impact on performance on broad comprehension measures. How ever, the maximum impact from improvement in ORF will not be obtained unless work on ORF is embedded within a complete program that also stimulates and builds comprehension strategies, vocabulary, and reasoning skills.

The development of reading fluency for students in Reading First Schools: A lesson from Florida’s experience For the past two years, students in 320 Reading First schools in Florida have been “losing ground” in the development of reading fluency in 2nd grade. Many students who enter second grade with reading fluency at “grade level” leave second grade below grade level

The Fluency to Comprehension Connection Joseph K. Torgesen