Reading Fluency and ELLs
Developing Reading Fluency Among English Language Learners
Shannon Cruz
College of Charleston
1
Reading Fluency and ELLs
Abstract
This paper examines the importance of reading fluency in the overall reading
development of English language learners. Assessments used for measuring fluency are
discussed, as well as how fluency impacts comprehension. Components of an effective literacy
program are described along with effective strategies for implementing these components with
English language learners. Finally, the impact of this research on the author and how this
information will be used in her classroom is discussed.
2
Reading Fluency and ELLs
3
The importance of developing literacy skills in the primary grades has been well
documented. Studies show that students who fail to develop early literacy skills are likely to
remain behind throughout their school years (Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis &
Kouzekanani, 2003). There is a 90% probability that students who do not read well in first grade
will continue to be poor readers by fourth grade and have 75% probability of being poor readers
in high school (Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004). English language learners face
an additional challenge of learning English while developing their literacy skills. Statistics show
that Hispanic students tend to lag behind non-Hispanic students in reading during elementary and
high school (Linan-Thompson et al., 2003). However, according to the National Literacy Panel,
it is possible for second language learners to read at the same rates as native English speakers in
the early grades (Graves, Gersten, & Haager, 2004). With early and intense intervention,
students with severe reading difficulties can reach national averages (Feazell, 2004).
Part of becoming a successful reader includes developing reading fluency. Students who
read fluently can concentrate on comprehension (Linan-Thompson et al., 2003). According to
Laberg and Samuel, readers need to be able to focus little attention on word recognition in order
to comprehend well. This theory is known as the automaticity theory (Taguchi, TakayasuMaass, & Gorsuch, 2004). While teachers have expressed concern that reading fluency does not
necessarily correlate with successful comprehension, researchers have found oral reading fluency
to be an effective indicator of overall success in reading. Wiley and Deno found oral reading
fluency to be a better predictor of overall reading ability than a maze measure commonly used by
teachers, where students must choose the missing word in a passage from three possible choices
(Wiley and Deno, 2005).
Reading Fluency and ELLs
4
Gersten and Baker also found a strong correlation between oral reading fluency and
comprehension (Graves et al., 2004). Hamilton and Shin found that students who have poor
comprehension skills also score poorly on Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM), a test of
reading fluency in which students are scored on the number of words read correctly from a
passage in one minute. Studies have shown oral reading skills to be good predictors of success
on state standardized tests in Washington, Illinois, and Michigan (Wiley & Deno, 2005).
Measures of oral reading fluency, such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS) have been useful for determining “at-risk” students, even among English language
learners (ELLs) (Graves et al., 2004). Baker and Good found that measures of reading fluency
such as DIBELS are just as valid for bilingual students as monolingual students (Wiley & Deno,
2005). While the DIBELS end of first grade benchmark of 40 words per minute may be high for
ELLs because many are not yet fluent speakers, ELLs who scored less than 20 words per minute
were likely to be identified as learning disabled (Graves et al., 2004).
With oral reading fluency being such an important indicator of overall reading success, it
is important for teachers to implement effective reading instruction in the primary grades and
among struggling readers. The National Reading Panel listed several important components of
an effective early literacy program. These components include emphases on reading fluency,
phonemic awareness, vocabulary, decoding, comprehension and word analysis (LinanThompson et al., 2003). Struggling readers also benefit from spelling and writing practice
(Denton et al., 2004). These components have been found to be helpful for both native English
speakers and ELLs (Graves et al., 2004). Combining these components with best practices for
working with ELLs increases the likelihood of successful intervention for ELLs who also
struggle with reading.
Reading Fluency and ELLs
5
Studies have shown that ELLs benefit from explicit instruction in phonemic awareness
Explicit instruction combined with redundancy, student directed activities and opportunities to
practice, can help ELLs to make significant progress in reading fluency (Linan-Thompson et al.,
2003). It is also helpful for ELLs to focus on phonemic elements which may differ from their
native languages (Denton et al., 2004). Focusing on differences between the native language and
the second language may facilitate the transfer of literacy knowledge from the native language to
the second language. Instruction on phonemic awareness should give students opportunities to
blend, segment, delete, substitute and manipulate the phonemes in words. It may be helpful for
ELLs to have access to pictures of the words being studied in order to facilitate vocabulary
development (Linan-Thompson, 2003). Students may benefit from small group or individual
instruction rather than large groups (Denton et al., 2004).
Repeated reading is another strategy that is helpful to develop reading fluency in English
language learners. Repeated reading is a strategy developed by Samuels in which students read a
passage repeatedly until they can read it with ease. Students may read along with the teacher or
with a recording (Taguchi et al., 2004). Pair reading or echo reading may also be used (LinanThompson, 2003). Repeated readings are helpful because rereading helps to free students from
the constraints placed on comprehension by having to focus mental energy on decoding and
word recognition. Studies have also shown that improvements in fluency during repeated
reading can transfer to new passages, especially if there is an overlap in vocabulary (Taguchi et
al., 2004).
The neurological impress method has also shown promise in helping struggling readers
develop fluency. With the neurological impress method, developed by Heckelman, the
struggling reader listens to a recording of frustration level text and tries to follow the text with
Reading Fluency and ELLs
6
his/her eyes. A subject of Heckelman’s study improved reading fluency by three grade levels
after just twelve one-hour sessions using the neurological impress method (Feazell, 2004). .
Success with the neurological impress method motivated Victoria Feazell, a resource
specialist teacher in Southern California to develop a Reading Acceleration Program (RAP). The
RAP program has 6 major components. Phonemic awareness is taught using music, rhythm and
chants, which have been shown to enhance memory. The phonemic awareness portion of the
lesson is followed by dictation. During dictation, students are given the opportunity to practice
and repeat ten phonetically similar words. Students are given immediate feedback on errors.
They also write and read aloud sentences on relevant topics. The third strategy of the RAP
model uses phonics readers to focus on the sounds being studied. Feazell also incorporates the
repeated reading strategy into this part of the lesson. Students also listen and follow along with
audio-cassettes of on-grade level material to develop vocabulary, and are encouraged to listen
and follow along with these same cassettes at home in order to practice fluency. Feazell also
strives to elicit positive emotions during her lessons and regularly assesses students. Students
who participated in the RAP program exceeded their expected gains in fluency as measured by
Oral Reading Fluency measures (Feazell, 2004).
Another program which incorporates many of the components recommended by the
National Reading Panel and has been successful with students is the “Read Well” program.
“Read Well” is a curriculum recommended for Kindergarten and first grade beginning readers as
well as remedial second and third grade readers. “Read Well” includes systematic, explicit
instruction in phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary instruction and
comprehension. (Santoro, Jitendra, Starosta, & Sacks, 2006). “Read Well” uses two types of
connected texts. One set are meant to be read by students alone, the other set are read as a duet
Reading Fluency and ELLs
7
with both teachers and students. In the duet texts, the teacher’s text has more complex language
than the students’ text. The phonological awareness component focuses on differences in
languages and includes immediate feedback and error correction (Denton et al., 2004). In a
study that examined reading progress of ELLs using the “Read Well” program, participants
increased their phonemic segmentation fluency, letter naming fluency, word attack skills, and
oral reading fluency. The “Read Well” program may have had even better results if connections
had been made to students’ lives, a strategy which is helpful for ELLs (Santoro et al., 2006).
I chose to do my research paper on reading fluency and English language learners
because of our school’s emphasis on reading fluency and how it impacts comprehension.
Students at our school have been selected for various reading intervention groups based on their
DIBELS oral reading fluency scores. However, I was concerned that fluency may not be a good
indicator of reading success for ELLs because I have two students in particular who are fluent
readers, but have poor comprehension skills. I was also concerned that the “authentic” literacy
activities I use with my intervention group may not be effective for developing fluency. From
this research, I found out that fluency usually is a good indicator of overall success in reading,
even for ELLs. I also learned that many of the activities I use with my intervention group, such
as repeated readings, using grade-level texts, and recordings of reading material are helpful for
developing fluency. In addition, I plan to implement some of the strategies I learned through this
research. I plan to spend more time on phonemic awareness by using “making words” activities
developed by Pat Cunningham. I also plan to increase my use of repeated readings through
activities such as reader’s theater. By using these activities, I am hopeful that the students in my
intervention group will make even greater gains in their reading fluency than they have in the
fall, which will in turn lead to improvements in comprehension and overall reading ability.
Reading Fluency and ELLs
References
Denton, C.A., Anthony, J.L., Parker, R. & Hasbrouck, J.E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring
programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students.
The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289-305.
Feazell, V.S. (2004). Reading Acceleration Program: A school wide intervention. The
Reading Teacher, 58(1), 66-72.
Graves, A.W., Gersten, R, & Haager, D. (2004). Literacy instruction in multiple-language
first-grade classrooms: linking student outcomes to observed instructional practice.
Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 19(4), 262-272.
Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P. & Kouzekanani, K. (2003) Effectiveness
of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with
reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 221-238.
Santoro, L. E., Jitendra, A. K., Starosta, K. & Sacks, G. (2006). Reading Well with Read Well:
Enhancing the reading performance of English language learners. Remedial and
Special Education, 27(2), 105-115.
Taguchi, E., Takayasu-Mass, M. & Gorsuch, G.J. (2004). Developing reading fluency in EFL:
How assisted repeated reading and extensive reading affect fluency development.
Reading in a Foreign Language, (16)2, 70-96.
Wiley, H.I. & Deno, S.L. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for
English language learners on a state standards assessment. Remedial and Special
Education 26(4), 207-214.
8