PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
November 2014 Volume 1, Number 1
Young English Learners’ Retrospective Analysis of Fluency Using E-Readers
Dr. Sally Brown
Georgia Southern University
sallybrown@georgiasouthern.edu
Abstract
With the increase in multimodel forms of literacy available to emerging readers, there are
questions for teachers who would like to integrate the new 21st century technologies into their
literacy pedagogy. This is especially true in classrooms that serve students who are most at risk
for not having exposure to new technologies. Using ethnographic tools to assess English
language learners’ literacy development in a Title I classroom, this article explores using
aesthetical experiences to assist with meaning construction, studies how retrospective analysis
leads to student agency, and describes how multiple modes enhances learning.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
51
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
“[Fluency] is like when I read and it sounds like a good story. You get that it’s a funny book or a
scary book or excitement and stuff like that. It makes me want to hear stories more and more.”
[David, 2013]
Luis sits with his Nook e-reader in the corner of the book center with the digital book
Baghead (Krosoczka, 2002) open. He taps the read and record tab on the first page. Luis begins
reading and recording, “On Wednesday morning, Josh had an idea.” After recording, Luis
listens to his own voice, smiles, and moves to page two where he reads and records, “A very BIG
idea. A very BROWN idea.” in a steady voice. Once again he listens before moving on, but this
time he shakes his head no. He says to himself, “That not how to say it. I gotta do it over. Yea.
Better.” Luis taps to erase and rerecord page two only this time he emphasizes the words big and
brown which appear as large, bold, uppercase letters in the book. His voice adds an element of
loudness as well as extensions of the words like, “BIIIIIGGG.” After listening to the second
recording, Luis whispers, “Uh, huh,” to himself and quickly moves to the next page (Field notes,
March, 2013).
This vignette captures the essence of this research study investigating how the read and
record functions of digital picture books on an e-reader impact the reading experiences of young
English learners. As we move into the 21st century it is vital that low income multilingual
students be afforded the contemporary communication and learning opportunities made available
to White, middle-class, English speaking students. Many teachers tend to relegate technology
applications to drill and skill for minority and working-class students (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis,
2010; Lichter, Qian, & Crowley, 2006; NCES, 2000) and ignore the multiliteracy capabilities of
young students (Siegel, Kontovourki, Schmier, & Enriquez, 2008). Young emergent bilinguals
compose approximately one-fifth of young children, and lag behind their native English speaking
peers in reading (Frede & García, 2010). Hernandez (2011) found that students who fail to read
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
52
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
proficiently by the end of third grade are four to six times more likely to drop out of high school
than proficient readers. So, there is a need for these students to engage in rich, authentic, technobased literacy activities within their early childhood classrooms (Warschauer & Matuchniak,
2010).
Reading as a Meaning Making Process
A psycholinguistic model of reading is based on the premise that written language makes
sense and serves as meaningful forms and functions in daily literacy practices (Goodman, 2001).
“Every reading act is an event, or a transaction involving a particular reader and a particular
pattern of signs, a text, and occurring at a particular time in a particular context” (Rosenblatt,
1994, p. 1059). So, reading is an active process where the reader selectively tests meaning-based
predictions through confirmations or rejection of hypotheses. This integration of multiple
sources of information (semantic, syntactic, graphophonemic, and pragmatic) is the way readers
construct meaning when interacting with texts (Goodman, 1996). Therefore, during word
identification the reader utilizes the sequence of words to eliminate alternatives rather than
decoding individual letters and words in isolation (Smith, 2011). These language systems must
be supported by classroom literacy instruction that integrates these processes in socially situated
authentic contexts that do not focus on skill mastery.
Reading in a New Language
When working with students who are learning to read in English as a new language, it is
important to consider the individual student. Genishi and Dyson (2009) remind us to draw from
the premise that children learning a new language may take different paths at various rates as
they interact with others in a multitude of sociocultural contexts. English learners need time to
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
53
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
transition from slow to fluent reading as they learn aspects of the English language like
vocabulary, syntax, and prosody through exposure to texts at various reading levels (Kuhn &
Rasinski, 2009). In addition, second language fluency development requires a long incremental
learning process and practice should minimally focus on getting the language exact (Grabe,
2009).
Pedagogy for teaching English learners to read should be guided by the premise that
reading equals meaning construction without a focus on word-by-word decoding.
Comprehension is critical for academic success and this means English learners should have
authentic experiences with texts at appropriate levels (Freeman & Freeman, 2007). Research
shows the speed of a reader is influenced by a reader’s purpose, life experiences, and linguistic
resources. One should not make comparisons between readers, different readings of the same
text, or reading on different days due to the complexities and dynamic nature of reading
(Flurkey, 2008). Whitmore, Martens, Goodman, and Owocki (2004) remind us that “No child
can be viewed as independent of her sociocultural identity, her political status, or her linguistic
heritage (p. 318).” As a result considerations for individual differences must be accounted for as
language learning progresses over time.
Fluency
Fluency is at the forefront of many literacy debates for educators and Allington (2012)
reports it as being one of the biggest challenges facing readers. He is clear that fluency not only
means rate, but is inclusive of other factors like intonation and phrasing. Numerous commercial
programs and standardized testing like DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy
Assessment) narrow fluency to almost exclusively mean rate (Goodman, 2006). Thus, many
students end up reading accurately and quickly with little comprehension (Allington, 2006).
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
54
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Given the increasing pressure on teachers to narrowly focus on test scores (Ravitch, 2010), some
teachers tend to focus on rate to the exclusion of other important aspects of fluency that are
essential for comprehension. In particular, the transactive nature of reading, an active meaning
making process, gets lost (Altwerger, Jordan, & Shelton, 2007).
Raskinski (2010) suggests that fluency is fostered through authentic oral reading when
students engage in quick reading with meaningful expression. Authentic reading instruction
pivots on comprehension. Requiring both wide and deep expressive oral reading only enhances
meaning (Raskinski, 2012). Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, and Smith (2008) highlight the importance
of students receiving feedback about their fluency in order to transfer oral reading skills to silent
reading. Monitoring fluency along with comprehension as self-regulating processes leads
readers toward independence in navigating texts by using strategies to repair and improve
understanding (Reutzel, 2006). Internalizing a model of fluent reading using one’s self or peer
coaching assists in this self-monitoring development (Raskinski, Homan, & Biggs, 2009).
Multimodal Literacy
Multimodality, a social semiotic perspective, refers to the interconnectedness of writtenlinguistic modes with other ways of making meaning such as visual and aural. These new ways
of literacy learning require an expanded sense of communication that values a wide range of
texts with variations in form and function (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Meaning makers, readers,
actively use all available forms of representation to transform or reconfigure modalities. In order
for this to occur, students must be agentive in the dynamic literacy process to be dynamic and
innovative. Shifting from conventions such as grammar and transmission of knowledge to
unfamiliar domains where learners draw from multiple metalanguages and a mixture of modes to
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
55
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
both interpret and express a repertoire of ideas is essential in meeting the needs of diverse
students (Cope & Kalantzis, 2013).
Literacy and technology operate concurrently when students engage in multimodal
learning activities. Contemporary classroom interactions require bridges between the new
literacies students engage with outside of school and available classroom technology tools.
Young learners are quick to construct meaning through interactions with multimedia texts in
fluid ways that transform traditional practices (Walsh, 2010). Given the importance of
technology for 21st century citizenship and the changing nature of a global world, a multimodal
pedagogy is indispensable (NCTE, 2008).
Context and Methods
This research is extracted from a year-long research project in an urban, Title I, public
school, third grade classroom. The participants (pseudonyms) were seven English learners
whose first languages were Spanish, French Creole, and Vietnamese (Table 1). The project
looked closely at the literacy development of these students as they read and recorded digital
books on e-readers. The Barnes and Noble Nook Tablet was used because it afforded a record
and play option to be used with a variety of children’s literature in a digital format. The
recording function allowed students to record in small page-by-page chunks with immediate
listening capabilities before moving on to the next part of the story.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
56
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Table 1
Student Information.
Student
First
(Pseudonym) Language
ACCESS
Score*
(August)
Instructional
Reading Level
(May)**
4.5
ACCESS Instructional
Score*
Reading
(May)
Level**
(August)
6.0
L
Darly
French Creole
Arturo
Spanish
2.0
3.5
E
K
Luis
Spanish
4.1
5.7
K
M
Andrea
Spanish
4.0
5.5
M
P
David
Spanish
5.0
6.0
M
O
Mai
Vietnamese
1.0
3.9
E
I
N
*ACCESS – Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State to State for English
Language Learners (6 point scale)
**(Fountas & Pinnell, 1999)
The students met in small groups which were comprised of both English learners and
English-only peers. Using the Nooks as a tool, these heterogeneous groups met with the
researcher twice per week for literacy instruction. Students listened to the cyber voice read a
story, practiced reading it orally, and then recorded themselves reading the texts. During the
recording sessions the participants listened to their performance on each page and determined if
re-recording was necessary based on their own evaluation of their reading. Once the entire story
was recorded, each student evaluated their fluency (including pausing, phrasing, stress,
intonation, and rate) (Fountas & Pinnell, 2006) using the student developed rubric. The English
learners developed goals tied to improving their fluency through the writing reflection section of
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
57
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
the rubric (Appendix A). In addition, the students listened to one another’s recordings and
completed a peer evaluation rubric.
An ethnographic perspective (Green & Bloome, 1997) was used to focus on literacy
practices (the ways of being and doing with both words and oral recordings) involved with
personal literary experiences with digital texts given specific social and cultural contexts (Street,
Pahl, & Roswell, 2009). By connecting multimodality and ethnography, reading was viewed as
a situated social practice with the literacy event as the unit of analysis (Moss, 2003). In the case
of this study, digital picture books involving rich dialogue served as a stimulus for recording and
reflecting upon the use of voice as a tool to construct meaning. In other words, the participants
determined how each text was read and the meaning associated with the images, characters,
settings, and events.
Ethnographic tools documented the study as the researcher assumed the role of
participant observer (Spradley, 1980) which varied from passive to active according to the
evolving context. All of the small group experiences were documented through field notes and
videotaping with selected events being transcribed (Glesne, 2010). Each student participated in a
reflective interview (Seidman, 2006) after completing five read and record events. Translators
were used when appropriate. In addition, students created a rubric based on the elements of
reading they felt were most important. A five star system was used for evaluation since the
students were accustomed to using this model to write online book reviews. The five evaluative
statements were followed by one open-ended response which required students to set a reading
goal (for themselves or a peer). This rubric was modified slightly to create a peer evaluation
rubric on fluency as well. Additionally, retellings of the stories were evaluated on a 10-point
scale.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
58
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
The field notes, interviews, transcripts, retellings, and open-ended responses were
analyzed using the constant comparison method (Charmaz, 2006) regarding student language use
associated with particular aspects of the reading process, discursive patterns, and agentive
stances for shaping reading and re-reading of texts (Gee, 2005). After initial coding (Table 2), a
more intensive tacit review of the codes was conducted to provide a clearer picture of
participants' viewpoints and understandings of fluency and comprehension. This focused
Table 2
Coding Chart Sample
Initial Codes
Refined Codes
Themes
Engagement
Enjoyment
Comprehension
Humor
Talk Reading
Author Sounding
Expressive Voice
Font/Print Size Influence
Self-Guided Learning
Self-Revision
Rereading
Sense of Accomplishment
Choice Time Spent with Text
Instructional Power
Control over Technology Tools
Immediate Performance Feedback
Written Feedback
Negotiation through Talk
Peer-Guided Learning
Reading to Understand
Aesthetic Experiences
Cyber Voice-Like Reading
Self-Teaching
Student Agency
Student Voice
Student Choice
Self-Evaluation
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
59
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
coding was more selective and permitted the synthesis of larger ideas across data (Charmaz,
2006). For example, the initial codes of engagement, enjoyment, comprehension, and humor
formed a larger category called reading to understand which fell into a broader theme called
aesthetic experiences. These codes intersected to illustrate the ways in which students read and
reread for the personal purpose of meaning construction. In addition, descriptive statistics were
used to report the quantitative data gathered from the peer and self-evaluations rubrics. This data
was embedded into the larger ideas to support the qualitative findings.
The following sections report the findings revolving around the three major themes of the
study: aesthetical experiences assisting with meaning construction, retrospective analysis leading
to student agency, and multiple modes enhancing learning. Transcripts as well as quantitative
data provide examples of student voices and perceptions of the reading process using the ereaders.
Findings
Aesthetical Experiences Assist with Meaning Construction
The students felt the goal of reading and listening to stories was enjoyment, engagement,
and understanding above all else. For them this meant being able to hear changes in the reading
that aided in comprehension like different characters’ voices, feelings of excitement, and the
addition of humor. In the interviews and small group interactions participants repeatedly focused
on the ways in which good reading sounded like talk (Goodman, 2001). For example, after
Arturo listened to a story read by a peer, he commented, “You read like you talk. You sounding
like the author [cyber voice] when you read. It’s good. I get your story.” His comments
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
60
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
reflected the importance of an aesthetic reading experience for meaning construction and
enjoyment (Rosenblatt, 1978).
Students also reflected upon their own readings of the five pieces of children’s literature,
and evaluated themselves lowest (an average of 3.7 out of 5) in the area of word reading or
accuracy (Figure 1). Even though students made miscues or skipped words while reading, these
Figure 1
Retrospective Self-Analysis Using 5 Star Rubric
Average Rating
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
Medium
Reading
Word Reading
Change in
Voice
Volume
Punctuation
were not significant enough to alter to the overall meaning of the text. For example, after
listening to his recording of Awesome Dawson (Gall, 2013), Luis smiled and leaned over to
Henry and said,
I did pretty good on this one. You want to listen? I have a good robot cow voice.
Listen. ‘The vacu-maniac has a brain made of cat food, Dawson’ [Read a line from
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
61
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
the text in a robotic voice].Yea, yea, you will love it cuz I made it funny. I did mess up
on some words. [Flipped pages on Nook.] Like right here. I forgot this word [hurricane]
and one, no two more, well more than that. I think. It won’t matter cuz you can still
get it [understand the story].
In this instance Luis’s excitement about his production or recording was shared with Henry. His
talk focused on the aesthetic or joy of reading a humorous story during which he perfected a cow
voice that matched the character’s inanimate being. Luis noted that his reading was not perfect
in terms of word accuracy, but determined that lack of perfection would not interfere with
meaning and enjoyment. The large number of words Luis was able to identify automatically
coupled with elements of prosody supported comprehension (Kuhn & Rasinski, 2009).
Goodman (1996) recognizes the role of accuracy in the reading process and notes that
accuracy does not ensure comprehension just as inaccuracy does not necessarily signal lack of
comprehension. It was clear in this example that Luis was focused on reading for meaning as he
used available resources to make sense of the text. As an English language learner Luis
concentrated more on prosodic features of the reading and less on being exact with the language
(Grabe, 2009).
Retellings
The process of creating recordings through multiple experiences with each text enriched
students’ retellings of the stories (Figure 2). Each student controlled the amount of interactions
with each text. For example, Mai listened to Red and Yellow’s Noisy Night (Selig, 2012) three
times before she determined she was ready to record her own reading of the text. It seemed as if
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
62
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Mai was listening closely to the cyber voice as a scaffold for pronunciation of the English words
(Reutzel & Cooter, 2011) and understanding of story events.
Figure 2
Retelling Scores
Average Rating
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Daredevil Stunt
Show
Baghead
Awesome
Dawson
Red & Yellow You Will Friend
Once comfortable with words and meaning of the text, Mai recorded her version.
Observations indicated Mai’s repeated attempts at recording were focused on expression or
changing her voice and using punctuation. Rate and word accuracy received less attention.
Overall, Mai transacted with this particular text on seven occasions over a two week period. At
the end of this time Mai retold the story accurately with supportive details:
Yellow man and red man live in tree. Red man make noise with brown thing. Yellow
man mad. He want sleep. Not happy. Red, he make happy song music. Yellow man get
happy. He sleep.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
63
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Mai recalled the main details in an appropriate sequence and identified the main characters
(which were indeterminate animals) while referring to them as “red man and yellow man.” She
was unsure of the English vocabulary word to represent a musical instrument which was called a
“strummy” in the story. However, she noted the importance of this “brown thing” in the story as
she commented on yellow man being mad and wanting to sleep.
Her experiences with this text were not bound by teacher direction, probed with scripted
questions, or timed. They were self-guided in a way that supported her construction of meaning.
Mai’s work as a reader was not focused on calling words in isolation, rather to construct an
understanding of the whole (Rosenblatt, 1995).
Retrospective Analysis Leads to Student Agency
The retrospective analysis process was twofold. First, the students used their own
judgment to analyze and initiate changes to their recordings in the midst of reading each page.
Second, upon completion of recording an entire text, students reflected upon their overall
performance in reflexive ways and utilized the rubric to envision improvements for future
readings (Mills & Jennings, 2011). The immediate feedback (listening to the recordings) and
opportunities for revision (repeated recording) created an active space for student agency. The
artifacts, recordings and rubrics, appeared to be used to mediate students’ thoughts and actions
about fluency performance (Holland, Lachicotte Jr., Skinner, & Cain, 1998).
The following transcript highlighted the role of agency, control over one’s learning and
resources, enacted by students through the retrospective analysis process (Holland et al., 1998).
David explained the importance of student agency in an interview.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
64
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
I like with Nooks I get to decide. I listen, then, when I do not like it [recording], I erase
it. So easy. No one else gets to hear it. I am the boss and I can make it better and better
and better until I like it. Like, I make lots of different kinds of voices, like that boy and
then there was a momma bear. They got to sound different, you know. Don’t read them
the same. Make yourself loud when you see big words. Sometimes you have to read
quiet like baby bear, so you get what’s happening…
When David was asked how the Nooks supported him as a reader, he began by talking about
control over decision making and being the boss of his learning. This was very different from
reading instruction with his teacher where the basal and accompanying materials and lessons
were implemented without student input or choice. David noticed and articulated the importance
of controlling available resources given the social context and made decisions about the ways in
which he used the repeated recordings to improve his oral reading fluency (Fisher, 2010).
David also acknowledged the ways in which the peer-evaluation rubrics empowered him
as a reader. Upon completion of recording You Will Be My Friend (Brown, 2011), David’s small
group traded their Nooks with one another, listened to each other’s recordings, and completed
rubrics about the performances. Andrea listened to David’s and wrote the following comment to
him, “You did okay but I think you do not use the excited [exclamation] marks. You did not
sound excited.” Upon receiving this feedback, David responded,
You see what Andrea said. She said I do not do the excited ones. I did.
Well, let me just listen, listen one more time. [Put on headphones and listened
to his recording.] Oh, oh, maybe here [Talked to self.] Oh, oh. Kinda. Yea,
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
65
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
this one. [Stopped listening and removed headphones.]
At first David seemed disturbed by Andrea’s comments, but after listening to his recording he
came to a different conclusion. He remarked, “Hey, Dr. XX I get it. Andrea said that I do not
read things with excited. I thought she was making it up. No. I really did not do it. I heard me.
I can do better. Can I record this again?” David utilized the rubric comments or discussion with
a peer as a resource to respond it a positive way to this learning opportunity afforded to him
(Fisher, 2010; Wassell, Hawrylak, & LaVan, 2010). The peer feedback led David to make a
choice that led to improvement in his reading performance (Reutzel et al., 2008).
Multiple Modes Enhance Learning
Students were also quick to articulate judgments about any readings that “sound[ed] like
a robot” since this interfered with their construction of meaning and the pleasure associated with
listening to a story. This occurred across contexts as students used language to transform words
on a page into a multimodal production using meaning making resources available to each
individual (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). The event below occurred as a small group of students
were sitting around a table recording their readings of Kel Gilligan’s Daredevil Stunt Show
(Buckley, 2012). The students heard one another recording and spontaneously made comments.
Arturo: [Read in a monotone voice.] The potty of doom! Done, done, done.
Darly:
[Watched Arturo and listened to his reading.] Hey, I just finished that part.
That’s not how you do it.
Arturo: [Took headphones off.] What are you saying?
Darly:
You read it boring like. Look at his face. [Pointed to image.] He is yelling.
You can not read it like that. And anyway that is not how it goes. It is like this.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
66
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
[Read with expression.] The potty of doom! Dun-Dun-Duhhhhh! See it is
not done, done, done.
Katy:
[Interrupted.] Hey, you can listen to mine. I did that page already. [Flipped to
the appropriate page on her Nook. Unplugged headphones and played page for
boys to hear.]
Arturo: Oh, I get it. He is screaming it at his momma. Let me try mine again. [Rerecorded page.]
Darly: [Listened to Arturo record.] Yea, you get it now. Better. [Laughed.]
Arturo worked to remake the written text including visual images into an audio version in
a way that represented his construction of the text. Darly interrupted when he disagreed with the
way Arturo articulated the author’s words. The text served as a prompt for talking about fluency
aspects of reading and an opportunity to analyze the different ways one might transform a phrase
when reading aloud (Moss, 2003).
In a way Darly realized that language was only part of the construction of knowledge and
the need for the aural version to include additional features that is not available to written
communication (Kress & Jewitt, 2003). The message of the recording and visual images
required more of a combination of modes in order to carry the entire meaning of the story in a
way in which an individual reader uses voice to remake the unique meaning of the text (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2013).
Each of the themes showcases the ways technology, particularly e-books with a read and
record function, supports student learning in terms of reading comprehension and fluency. The
students forefront the essential role of expression and meaning making and relegate accuracy and
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
67
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
rate to a smaller role in the reading process. Although this study focused on third grade English
learners, the findings may be applicable to other grade levels.
Discussion
Repeated reading, recording, and analyzing rubrics were all resources the students drew
from to enhance their development as readers (Kuhn & Rasinksi, 2009; Reutzel et al., 2008).
Although growth in instructional reading levels cannot be solely attributed to this project (as
indicated in Table 1), this data does provide insight into the larger picture of these students as
readers who are working toward understanding text of which fluency is embedded.
Improvements in fluency did not come from final products, but in the learning and
interactions that occurred during the process (Whitmore et al., 2004). The data examples suggest
that accuracy and rate play a small role in reading comprehension and therefore, reading rate and
accuracy should not be the forefront of literacy instruction (Allington, 2012; Altwerger, Jordan,
& Shelton, 2007). Instead, the central focus should be on the construction of meaning
(Goodman, 1996).
In all of the literacy events, students’ fore-fronted meaning construction and aesthetical
reading experiences over accuracy and pace. This was evident during the multimodal
construction where students only partially relied on language and instead, captured other modes
to ensure a rich experience listening to a text (Kress & Jewitt, 2003). Each reader reconstructed
the sounds of the written words in an individual process of interpreting multiple texts given the
social context of school (Rosenblatt, 1978). Transacting with texts was a personal experience
that may have been motivated by creating a performance for others to enjoy (Rasinski et al.,
2009).
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
68
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Flexible teaching methods that take into account the students’ inner clock as opposed to a
scripted, hurried curriculum are necessary for English learners (Genishi & Dyson, 2009). During
this study, there were no stop watches recording the number of words students read per minute.
Students used their own agency to engage in multi-literate experiences that varied individually
and allowed each student a different time span for achieving fluency (Kenner & Gregory, 2013).
This dynamic view of reading embraced a process that varies with the student, text, prior
experiences, and available resources (Flurkey, 2008).
Equally important is the use of innovative teaching methods and high quality digital texts
that engage students in literacy classrooms (Reutzel & Cooter, 2011; Schugar, Smith, & Schugar,
2013). Motivation is essential for readers working to develop competency in fluency (Thoermer
& Williams, 2012). Digital tools like the Nooks can provide many opportunities for literacy
development that go beyond traditional forms of reading and writing (Walsh et al., 2007) and
provide avenues for both wide and deep reading (Rasinski, 2012).
References
Allington, R. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based
programs (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Allington, R. (2006). Fluency: Still waiting after all these years. In S. Samuels and A. Farstrup
(Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 94-105). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Altwerger, B., Jordan, N., & Shelton, N. (2007). Rereading fluency: Process, practice, and
policy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Author. (2013). Field notes.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
69
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2013). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. In M.
Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated views and
perspectives (pp. 105-135). New York: Routledge.
Fisher, R. (2010). Young writers’ construction of agency. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
10(4), 410-429.
Flurkey, A. (2008). Reading flow. In A. Flurkey, E. Paulson, and K. Goodman (Eds.), Scientific
realism in studies of reading (pp. 267-304). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frede, E., & García, E. (2010). A policy and research agenda for teaching young English
language learners. In E. García & E. Frede (Eds.) Young English language learners:
Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy (pp. 184-196). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, P. (2006). Teaching for comprehending and fluency: Thinking, talking,
and writing about reading, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. (1999). Matching books to readers: Using leveled books in guided
reading K-3. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2007). English language learners: The essential guide. New York:
Scholastic.
Gee, J. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). New York:
Pearson.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
70
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Goodman, K. (2006). A critical overview of DIEBLS. In K. Goodman (Ed.), Examining
DIBELS: What it is and what it does (pp. 1-32). Brandon, VT: Vermont Society for the
Study of Education, Inc.
Goodman, K. (1996). On reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the
science of reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, Y. (2001). The development of initial literacy. In E. Cushman, E. Kintgen, B. Kroll
and M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 316-324). New York:
Bedford/St. Martins.
Goodman Y., & Marek, A. (1996) Retrospective Miscue Analysis in the Classroom. Katonah,
NY: Richard C. Owen.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S.
public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Green, J., & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated
perspective. Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and
visual arts, 181-202.
Hernandez, D. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influences
high school graduation. New York: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Holland, D., Lachicotte Jr., W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural
worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
71
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Kress, G., & Jewitt, C. (2003). Introduction. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy
(pp. 1-18). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Kuhn, M., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Helping diverse learners to become fluent readers. In L.
Morrow, R. Rueda, and D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy and diversity
(pp. 366-376). New York: Guilford Press.
Lichter, D., Qian, Z., & Crowley, M. (2006). Race and poverty: Divergent fortunes of America’s
children? Focus, 24(3), 8-16.
Mills, H., & Jennings, L. (2011). Talking about talk: Reclaiming the value and power of
literature circles. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 590-598.
Moss, G. (2003). Putting the text back into practice: Junior-age non-fiction as objects of design.
In C. Jewitt & G. (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 73-87). New York: Peter Lang
Publishing.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teacher use of computers and the
Internet in schools. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
National Council of Teachers of English (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies.
Retrieved November 3, 2013, from
http://ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition.
Rasinski, T. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot! The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516-522.
Rasinski, T. (2010). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition,
fluency, and comprehension (2nd ed.). New York: Scholastic Professional Books.
Rasinski, T., Homan, S., & Biggs, M. (2009). Teaching reading fluency to struggling readers:
Method, materials, and evidence. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25(2), 192-204.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
72
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Reutzel, R., & Cooter, R. (2011). Strategies for reading assessment and instruction: Helping
every child succeed. New York: Pearson.
Reutzel, R., Jones, C., Fawson, P., & Smith, J. (2008). Scaffolded silent reading: A complement
to guided repeated oral reading that works!, The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 194-207.
Reutzel, R. (2006). “Hey, teacher, when you say ‘fluency,’ what do you mean?” In T. Rasinski,
C. Blachowicz, and K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices
(pp. 62-85). New York: Guilford Press.
Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. Ruddell, M.
Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 10571092)(4th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary
work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schugar, H., Smith, C., & Schugar, J. (2013). Teaching with interactive picture e-books in grades
K-6. The Reading Teacher, 66(8), 615-624.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Siegel, M., Kontovourki, S., Schmier, S., & Enriquez, G. (2008). Literacy in motion: A case
study of a shape-shifting kindergartener. Language Arts, 86(2), 89-98.
Smith, F. (2011). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to
read (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Street, B., Pahl, K., & Roswell, J. (2009). Multimodality and new literacy studies. In C. Jewitt
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
73
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
(Ed.). The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 191-200). New York:
Routledge.
Thoermer, A., & Williams, L. (2012). Using digital texts to promote fluent reading. The Reading
Teacher, 65(7), 441-445.
Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239.
Walsh, M., Asha, J., & Sprainger, N. (2007). Reading digital texts. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 30(1), 40-53.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing
evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. In A. Luke, J. Green, & G. Kelly (Eds.),
Review of research in education: What counts as evidence in educational settings?
Rethinking equity, diversity, and reform in the 21st century (pp. 179-225). Vol. 34.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wassell, B., Hawrylak, M., & LaVan, S. (2010). Examining the structures that impact English
language learners’ agency in urban high schools: Resources and roadblocks in the
classroom. Education and Urban Society, 42(5), 599-619.
Whitmore, K., Martens, P., Goodman, Y., & Owocki, G. (2004). Critical lessons from the
transactional perspective on early childhood research. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 4(3), 291-325.
Children’s Literature Cited
Brown, P. (2011). You will be my friend. New York: Hachette Book Group.
Buckley, M. (2012). Kel Gilligan’s daredevil stunt show. New York: Abrams Books for Young
Readers.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
74
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Gall, C. (2013). Awesome Dawson. New York: Hachette Book Group.
Krosoczka, J. (2004). Baghead. New York: Random House Children’s Books.
Selig, J. (2012). Red & yellow’s noisy night. New York: Sterling Publishing.
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
75
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS
Appendix A Self-Evaluation Rubric
Name ___________________________________________________________________
Retrospective Fluency Self-Evaluation
1. Medium reading (not too fast or too slow) .
2. Read all the words without messing up.
3. Changed voices for characters and action.
4. Could hear the words.
5. Used punctuation marks.
What I would like to do better the next time I read:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 4, Number 1, 2014
Brown
76