Gabrielle Riggins

9/30/2016

Prof. Hamm

Research Paper

Reading has many goals, one of which is to increase comprehension. Rasinski and Hoffman

(2003) state in their research that one goal in reading instruction, then, is to develop word

decoding to a level of automatic processing so that readers can devote a maximum amount of

their available attention to constructing meaning from the text (p. 513). This would be defined as

fluency. In another passage of the same text the authors state that there are three components of

fluency that makes it an essential part of reading comprehension (Rasinski & Hoffman, p.513).

Those components are accuracy, automaticity, and prosody (p. 513). In this paper, I will explain

the three key components of fluency according to Rasinski and their place in reading

comprehension giving detailed examples of what it entails to the classroom as well as my own

personal response.

The first component of fluency according to Rasinski is accuracy. Accuracy is exactly what it

sounds like- accuracy refers to how many words that a student can recognize correctly. Rasinski

believes that in order to comprehend literature effectively students should have at least a ninety-

five percent word recognition rate (From Phonics To…). Children experiencing significant

reading problems in the elementary grades often manifest difficulties in word recognition

(Rasinski 1994, p. 165). With this in mind Rasinski proposes that we spend more time teaching

word recognition with sight words and word families. In his PDF presentation, From Phonics to

Fluency: Effective and Engaging Instruction To Two Critical Areas Of The Reading Curriculum,

Rasinski gives several examples of activities that would boost word recognition including a
 2

worksheet on making words using vowel and consonant sounds (p. 6). Using Rasinski’s model of

fluency would put an emphasis on word recognition. It would mean spending more time teaching

about words than actually teaching how they fit into a sentence to be read. In doing so Rasinski

conjectures that the children will spend less time decoding words and more time focusing on

interpreting meaning from a passage when they do read. This component is one of two

components meant to increase time spent in the comprehension phase of reading.

This leads us to the second component- automaticity. Like accuracy automaticity is basically

self-defining. Automaticity refers to how fast the aforementioned word recognition happens or

how little effort it takes for the students to read the words accurately (Rasinski, From Phonics

To…). Again this component is meant to decrease the time spent decoding words and increase

the time spent finding meaning and making connections within a text. He suggests the same

ideas with this component as he did with accuracy- flash cards, word building, and word ladders.

With each word learned there is more meaning to be gained from a text.

The third and last component is prosody. This term was not explicitly used in any of Rasinski’s

past research, he used the phrase interpretative and meaningful reading to label the last

component of fluency. So the concept of prosody, though a fairly new term, has been around for

a while. Here we will define prosody as the patterns of stress and intonation found in normal

spoken language. Prosody is thought of as a component to fluency due to the belief that fluent

readers should not only read words quickly and accurately, but also read with appropriate

expression and phrasing (Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003, p. 513). So in essence we want students to

read with the same ease in which they speak. In their joint work, Who Wants To Be A (Reading)

Millionaire, Rasinski and Padack (2011) stress the importance of students doing a wide variety

of reading to improve their fluency and comprehension. They want to do this by having the
 3

students read a variety of texts both on level and above level. They also want the students to have

varied reading experiences from individual to shared reading, Rasinski and Padack suggest that

such varied experiences are needed to develop fluency and comprehension. These seem like

laudable suggestions, but not everyone has been convinced of the necessity of Rasinski’s fluency

theory.

While we all agree that fluency is a component of reading in general, not everyone in the reading

field believes that fluency holds such a key part in reading comprehension. This can be seen in

the way that reading teachers gloss over fluency in class or the way it is not included in the

reading curriculum. The schools use strategies that have been proven to not foster fluency as a

way to teach students to read well. I found in research from Grant and Standing, interventions

that focus on increasing fluency have often been associated with significant gains in both fluency

and comprehension, as well as correlations the gains in each skill, for new readers and for

struggling readers through high school (Klauda & Guthrie, 2008). This research is from schools

using the definition of fluency as more than just another form of speed reading. Some studies

however have indicated disassociation between fluency and comprehension when fluency is

defined as accuracy or speed in reading individual words or pseudo words (Klauda & Guthrie,

2008). As I have shown here fluency is a great tool when used in the right way. It has been used

less because of a lack of results with improper strategies. With more research on the right

strategies for teaching fluency like that of what Rasinski proposes we might see a change in the

curriculum to include fluency.

Writing this paper has given me a deeper understanding of fluency and the reasons that it has

been neglected in the classroom for decades. I find myself agreeing with Rasinski & Hoffman

(2003) in the belief that automaticity and the development of prosody play complementary roles
 4

in fluency development (p. 513). I also understand that we live in a standardize system that does

not allow for that much time to be spent on laying the foundation, but on the same note if we

spend more time laying the foundation for fluency comprehension will be that much easier to

attain.
 5

References

Klauda, S. L., Guthrie, J.T. (2008). Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 100, 310-321.

Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.wesleyancollege.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid

=5be071b6-bf50-4943-96ae-6cd4cb8c81ab%40sessionmgr120&vid=1&hid=102

Rasinski, Timothy [PDF]. From Phonics to Fluency: Effective and Engaging Instruction to Two

Critical Areas of the Reading Curriculum. Retrieved from

http://www.timrasinski.com/presentations/IRA07Tim_Rasinski_2.pdf

Rasinski, Timothy (1994). Developing Syntatic Sensitivity in Reading Through Phrase-cued

Texts. Intervention in School and Clinic, Volume 29, 165-168.

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.wesleyancollege.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid

=54743b8e-a9b0-4933-b18d-f670b7c8a0c3%40sessionmgr106&vid=1&hid=102.

Rasinski, Timothy. Hoffman, V. James, V. (2003). Oral reading in the school literacy

curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, Volume 38, 510-522. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.wesleyancollege.idm.oclc.org/docview/212100016/fulltextPD

F/5434286E4ECA44E0PQ/1?accountid=14961

Rasinski, Timothy, Padack, N. (2011). Who Wants To Be A (Reading) Millionaire. The Reading

Teacher, 64, 553-555. Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.wesleyancollege.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid

=4f279e66-2586-4884-8f2f-07e73953ff8c%40sessionmgr106&vid=1&hid=102.

Rasinski, T.V., Blachowicz, C.L.Z., Lems, K. (Eds.) (2006). Fluency Instruction: Research-

based Best Practices (2nd e.d.). New York: NY, The Guilford Press.
 6

Rasinski, T. (2012). Why Fluency Should Be Hot. The Reading Teacher, Volume 65, 516-522.

Retrieved from

http://web.b.ebscohost.com.wesleyancollege.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid

=f99c38b1-c187-4762-9bd5-744fef666299%40sessionmgr106&vid=2&hid=118