International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2014, 7(1), 3-12.

Fluency Matters
Timothy RASINSKI ∗
Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

Received: 23 October 2014 / Revised: 29 October 2014 / Accepted: 31 October 2014

Abstract
Although reading fluency has been dismissed and overlooked as an important component of effective
reading instruction, the author makes that case that fluency continues to be essential for success in
learning to read. Moreover, many students who struggle in reading manifest difficulties in reading
fluency. After defining reading fluency, the article explores proven methods for improving reading
fluency, and finally explores questions regarding fluency that when answered may lead to a greater
emphasis on and understanding of reading fluency as a necessary part of teaching reading.
Keywords: Fluency, Reading, Struggling Readers, Automaticity, Prosody

Introduction
In the late 1970s I was working as an intervention teacher, providing instruction mainly to
primary grade students who were experiencing difficulty in reading. For many of these
students simply helping them master and put into practice their knowledge of sound-
symbol relationships was sufficient to move the students forward. For a fairly significant
number of students, more and different phonics instruction was not enough. They were
already fairly good at sounding out written letters and decoding words. However, reading
orally was clearly a painful experience. Although most of the words they encountered were
read correctly, their reading was marked by excessively slow, letter by letter and word by
word reading, lengthy pausing, and lack of expression. And, of course, this sort of reading
also resulted in poor comprehension. It was clear that these students were not enjoying the
experience nor were such experiences advancing their growth in reading
For my part, I did not know exactly what else I should be doing. I had been doing
instruction that was conventional for the day – language experience approach, phonics, read
aloud to students, discussions of the texts had read. Yet, none of these approaches seemed
to tap into the needs that were manifested in these students. Fortunately I had been working
on my masters’ degree at the time and one professor had us reading some professional
articles that were beginning to appear on this concept called reading fluency. One piece in
particular by Carole Chomsky (1976) entitled “After decoding: What? “ described an
intervention where students were asked to read a text repeatedly while simultaneously
listening to a fluent oral rendering of the text until they were able to read the text well on

∗
Timothy Rasinski, Reading and Writing Center, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242 USA. Phone:
330-672-0649. E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN:1307-9298
Copyright © IEJEE
www.iejee.com
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.7, Issue 1, 3-12,2014

their own without the assistance of the recording. Then students would continue the routine
using a new text.
The approach seemed deceptively simple and since I was out of instructional ammunition
I decided to give Chomsky’s approach a try with my own students. Remarkably, my students
began to make significant progress in reading. Moreover, I found that as students achieved
levels of reading performance that was the equal of their more normal developing
classmates, they began to see themselves as readers and were developing confidence in
themselves as readers. Although I had stumble on an approach to improving reading
through reading fluency instruction, I discovered that fluency was not all that popular a topic
in reading education. I recall digging through the teacher’s edition of the reading series we
used in school, looking for reading fluency and how it was taught. Although I found detailed
strands of instruction for phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension, I found very little that
dealt with fluency and the development of fluency in students. I decided then that fluency
was a topic I need to learn more about.
Defining Fluency
I have found that reading fluency can mean different things to different people. So, I would
like to share my understanding of reading fluency. Reading fluency is made up of two
distinct components at two ends of the reading spectrum – automaticity in word recognition
and expression in oral reading that reflects the meaning of the text. In a sense, reading
fluency is the essential link between word recognition at one end of the spectrum and
reading comprehension at the other.
Automaticity in word recognition refers to the ability to recognize or decode words not
just accurately, but also automatically or effortlessly. In their seminal article on reading
fluency, LaBerge and Samuels (1974) noted that all readers have a finite amount of attention
or cognitive energy to accomplish two essential tasks in reading – word recognition and
comprehension. Attention expended for one task cannot be applied to another, it is used up.
And so, when readers have to use excessive amount of their cognitive energy for word
recognition, even if they are able to decode the words accurately, they have reduce the
amount of cognitive energy available for comprehension and thus, comprehension suffers.
These were the readers I was working with in my intervention class. They were able to
decode most of the words, but simply listening to the excessive slowness of their word
decoding, it was not difficult to tell that they were using up plenty of their cognitive
resources analyzing and decoding the individual words in the text, they had little attention
left for making sense of what they were reading.
Automatic word recognition takes phonics to the next level. Automatic readers not only
recognize words accurately, they do it with minimal employment of their cognitive
resources. The best examples of automatic readers are you, the person reading this article. As
you read this piece, how many of the words did you have to analyze in order to sound out
correctly? My guess is few if any. Most of the words you encountered in this article were
identified by you instantly and effortlessly. Your minimal employment of attention means
that you can reserve your attention for making meaning, or understanding the text itself.
Expression in oral reading, or prosody, is fluency’s connection to meaning or
comprehension. In order to read something with appropriate expression that reflects the
author’s purpose and meaning, the reader must have some degree of comprehension of the
passage itself. Indeed, when reading orally with appropriate expression the reader is
enhancing his or her own comprehension by using various prosodic elements (volume,
pitch, phrasing, etc.) to expand on the meaning. Again, as I reflect on the students I had been

4
 Fluency Matters / Rasinski

working with many years ago, their lack of expression and confidence in their oral reading
was clearly apparent.
Why Reading Fluency Matters
Fluency matters simply because it is an essential element of proficient and meaningful
reading. In his “interactive compensatory model” of reading fluency, Stanovich (1980) argued
that the automaticity component of fluency is a distinguishing factor between good and
struggling readers. Good readers are so automatic or effortless at the bottom up word
processing requirement for reading, they can use employ their finite cognitive resources for
the more important top-down requirement for reading – comprehension. Struggling
readers, on the other hand, are not automatic in their word recognition, so they must use
their cognitive resources for the more basic bottom-up of word recognition, thereby
depleting what they will have available for more important top-down task – making
meaning.
In offering an alternative explanation of reading fluency that focused on prosody,
Schreiber (1980) suggested that good readers employ prosody in their reading to phrase text
into syntactically appropriate and meaningful units that are not always explicitly marked by
punctuation. Additionally, the oral emphasis placed on particular words or phrases in a
written text create inferences that allow readers to understand text at level deeper than
literal comprehension.
Over the past 30+ years, a growing body of evidence has demonstrated the link between
both components of fluency and proficient and meaningful reading (Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard,
& Linan-Thompson, 2011). Moreover, research into students who are identified as struggling
readers or who perform poorly on high stakes silent reading comprehension tests has found
that poor reading fluency appears to be a major contributing factor to their poor reading
(Rasinski, & Padak, 1998; Valencia & Buly, 2004). Further, although reading fluency is
identified as a foundational reading competency in the United States by the Common Core
State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014), an expanding body of
research has shown that many students in the upper elementary, middle, and secondary
grades have not achieved adequate levels of fluency in their reading and thus experience
difficulty in others of reading, including silent reading comprehension (Rasinski, et al, 2009;
Rasinski, Rikli, & Johnston, 2010; Paige, Rasinski, & Magpuri-Lavell, 2012). Although reading
fluency has been studied extensively for readers of English, the concept of fluency in reading
should apply to the reading of other written languages and at least one study has
demonstrated a relationship between reading fluency and proficiency in reading among
fifth-grade Turkish readers (Yildirim, Ates, Rasinski, Fitzgerald, & Zimmerman, 2014).
Despite the growing evidence of the importance of fluency in reading, it is ironic that in
the United States its perceived importance among literacy scholars and educators has been
on the decline. For the past several years, annual surveys of literacy experts have consistently
identified reading fluency as of one of the few topics that is considered “not hot” (Rasinski,
2012). Moreover, the same respondents also indicated strongly that reading fluency should
not be considered a hot topic in reading. This disconnect may be due to the way reading
fluency is commonly assessed and taught in many schools and in many commercial
instructional programs aimed at teaching fluency.
Assessing and Monitoring Reading Fluency
In order to determine if fluency is a concern among readers and how progress in fluency can
be monitored, we need to have methods of assessing fluency. Since automaticity refers to
the ability to recognize words instantly and effortlessly, reading speed or rate offers a simple

5
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.7, Issue 1, 3-12,2014

approach to measuring this component of fluency. Readers who are automatic in their word
recognition tend to read at a faster rate than readers who are less automatic; moreover
readers who are automatic in word recognition should also be better in reading
comprehension. Research has consistently demonstrated significant and substantial
correlations between measures of reading rate and reading comprehension or other general
measures of overall reading proficiency at a variety of grade levels (e.g., Deno, 1985; Rasinski,
Reutzel, Chard, & Linan-Thompson, 2011). The most common protocol for assessing
reading rate automaticity is to have a student read a grade level text for 60 seconds and
simply count the number of words read correctly in that minute. The reading rate score can
then be compared against grade level norms for students in the elementary and middle
grades (e.g. Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006). Students who fall significantly below the 50%ile score
may be considered at risk in terms of the automaticity component of fluency.
While reading rate has been established as a strong measure of automaticity, a major
potential problem occurs when reading fluency becomes instruction on how to increase
one’s reading rate. Such an approach seems to have dominated reading fluency instruction
over the past decade in the United States. The unintended consequence of such instruction
is the development of readers who understand reading to be all about reading as fast as
possible. Of course, reading becomes the quest for speed, reading comprehension often falls
by the wayside (Rasinski & Hamman, 2010).
Reading speed is an outcome of automaticity, it is not the cause of automaticity.
Automaticity in word recognition, as described in the next section is developed through
extensive practice of authentic reading experiences. As I mentioned earlier in this article, I
think most readers of this piece would consider themselves fluent in terms of their word
recognition automaticity; yet I would conjecture that few, if any, of you experienced the kind
of reading speed instruction that seems to have dominated reading fluency. Rather, we
developed our automaticity in reading simply by reading extensively. Plenty of exposure to
words and word patterns caused those words and patterns to become fixed in our memories
and easily retrieved when exposed to them in subsequent readings.
Prosody or expressiveness in reading is the other component in reading. While there have
been recent studies that have used high tech methods for assessing components of prosody,
the most practical approach for assessing prosody is for informed teachers to simply listen to
students read orally and to rate the students’ expressiveness on a guiding rubric (e.g., Zutell
& Rasinski, 1992). Although a subjective measure of prosody, studies have found that such
approaches are valid, reliable, and well correlated with other general measures of reading
proficiency. Still, the subjective nature of assessments of prosody means that such
assessments are often ignored or employed on a limited basis in schools. As a result, since
prosody is not overly emphasized in summative or formative assessments it is often not
taught or emphasized in instructional environments. As a result, an important aspect of
fluency instruction is often minimized, thus also leading to its identification as “not hot”
among reading experts.
Teaching Reading Fluency
Think of how you became fluent at any task and you’ll probably get a good sense of how
reading fluency can be taught. I consider myself a fairly “fluent” driver – despite driving over
12,000 miles per year, I have not been in an accident in over 20 years not have I received a
traffic violation ticket over that same period. How did I become the fluent driver that I am
today?
First, I watched my parents, and other adults in my life, drive during the first 16 years of
my life. I observed the protocol my parents used for starting, backing, driving, and parking

6
 Fluency Matters / Rasinski

the family car in various scenarios. I also became acquainted with the various controls on
different cars and the rules for driving as well as the signs that help to direct drivers. When I
turned 16 and received my learners’ permit to drive, I was finally able to get behind the
wheel and drive the family car on my own. However, I was never alone in these situations. I
always had one of my parents or another adult sitting next to me, offering me instructions,
guidance, and encouragement as I gradually learned the skill of driving. As I became more
and more proficient in my driving, my parents continued to sit next to me, but they offered
less and less guidance. Finally, my driving skills were tested at the local drivers’ licensing
station, I was found to be competent to a minimally acceptable level, and was issued a state
drivers’ license that allowed me to drive by myself, without the guidance or support of an
adult passenger sitting next to me. I must admit that even though I had my license to drive, I
was not a skilled driver. I had several minor accidents and also was issued a few warnings and
traffic tickets by the local police who observed me making deriving errors. However, I
continued to “practice” my driving, driving a variety of automobiles over the course of
several years.
Today, I consider myself a “fluent” or very competent driver of nearly any type of
conventional automobile. What I find interesting is that I am so competent (accurate and
automatic) in my driving ability I am able to engage in some other tasks while driving – I can
listen to the radio, chat with a passenger, or even talk on the cell phone while driving legally
and safely. This analogy also applies to reading where fluent readers are able to multi-task –
they are able to read the words in the text so accurately and automatically that I can, at the
same time, focus my attention on making meaning from the text.
Essentially my road to fluency in driving began with modeling of fluent driving by my
parents, supported driving where my parents or other competent adult driver sat next to me
while I drove to offer guidance, and finally independent practice in driving. The independent
practice involved repeated practice on my parents’ car at first, but as my driving proficiency
increased I was also able to drive a wider variety of automobiles, from my brother and sister’s
cars to cars owned by other relative and friends. Learning to become a fluent reader is in
many ways analogous to learning to drive.
Model Fluent Reading
Just as I spent a significant amount of time observing my parents drive during my early years,
children need to observe fluent reading by adults and other fluent readers. The value of
adults reading to children is compelling (Rasinski, 2010). Reading to children increases
children’s motivation for reading, enlarges their vocabulary, and also improves their
comprehension. Reading to children also provides children with a model of what oral
reading should sound like – embedded with expression that helps to enhance the listener’s
understanding of the text. Often when I read to students we will follow up a quick discussion
of the story itself with a discussion of how “Dr. Rasinski read the story.” I will try to make note
of various prosodic features I embedded in my reading (e.g. “Did you notice how I changed
my voice when I became a different character?” “What were you thinking when I made my
voice louder and faster as this particular point in the story?) and help them see that these
features helped with their satisfaction with and understanding and enjoyment of the text
itself.
Occasionally when I read to students I will purposely start by reading in a less-than-fluent
manner (too fast, too slow, too much of a monotone). After a couple sentences I stop and ask
them what they noticed in my reading. They are not generally impressed with this sort of
reading. Their satisfaction and understanding of the text was impaired by such disfluent
reading. Of course, my message to the students is that they do not understand well or have

7
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.7, Issue 1, 3-12,2014

much satisfaction with texts read in such a manner, they should try not to read in such a
manner themselves when reading independently as it will limit their understanding and
enjoyment of their texts.
Provide Fluency Support through Assisted Reading
When I first began driving, I had the assistance of an adult who sat next to me in the car and
provided expert support while driving. Support or assistance can also be made available to
students while reading in order to improve their fluency. Essentially assisted reading involves
the novice reader reading a text while simultaneously listening to a fluent oral rendering of
the text. As you may recall, Carole Chomsky’s research that was so influential to me involved
a form of assisted reading – students read a text while listening to a pre-recorded version of
the same text. Assisted reading provides support in at least two essential ways. First it allows
the students to decode all the words in the text successfully, even those that they would not
be able to decode if reading on their own. Second, by listening to a fluent reading of the text,
students are provided with a positive model of an expressive and meaningful reading of the
text. Students hear prosody in action while reading the same text. Assisted reading, then,
essentially supports both word recognition accuracy and automaticity as well as prosodic
reading.
Assisted reading can take a variety of forms. One of the most common is a novice reader
sitting next to a more fluent partner reader, with both readers reading the same text
together. Various names and protocols have been used and developed to operationalize
partner reading. In their review and summary of research on partner reading Rasinski,
Reutzel, Chard, and Linan-Thompson report that the various iterations of this form of assisted
reading to result in positive reading outcomes for students.
Technology offers some interesting assisted reading applications. Students reading a text
while listening to a fluent recorded version of the same text are engaged in assisted reading.
Recent developments in technology have freed students from cassette tapes, tape recorders,
and compact disc recordings. Using readily available voice recording applications, teachers
(or others) can record their reading of a text, save the recording as a digital file, provide
access to the recording via the internet, and have students read while listening to the digital
recording on a mobile device. Although the studies using technology –assisted reading is
limited, the results of the existing studies demonstrate great potential for improving
students’ fluency and overall reading achievement (Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & Linan-
Thompson, 2011).
Reading Practice
Once I had developed a minimally acceptable level of proficiency in my driving to be
permitted to drive independently, I needed to continue practice my driving in order to
achieve a level of high fluency. Similarly, developing readers need opportunities to read
independently in order to achieve high levels of fluency, both automaticity and prosody, in
their own reading.
Reading practice can actually take two general forms. The first and most common form of
practice is wide reading. This is the type of reading that adults typically engage in and it is
also the type of reading that usually occurs in school settings. Students read a text, discuss
the reading with the teacher and/or classmates, perhaps engage in some extension activities
related to the text, and then move on to the next text or book chapter. Wide reading is
essentially on reading after another. Clearly this form of reading is important, in both silent
and oral forms. Perhaps one of the most common forms of wide reading is found in the daily
independent reading or sustained silent reading time often to students. The cliché, “The

8
 Fluency Matters / Rasinski

more you read, the better reader you will become” has a lot of surface level truth to it. It is
difficult to imagine a person becoming a proficient reader without practicing the craft of
reading independently. Although not universally endorsed as an instructional activity (e.g.
National Reading Panel, 2000), a growing body of scholarly writing (e.g. Stanovich, 1986;
Morgan, Mraz, Padak, & Rasinski, 2008) and research (e.g. Allington, et al, 2010) suggests that
increasing the volume of students’ independent reading will yield improvements in
students’ reading fluency and other measures of reading proficiency. Reutzel, Jones, Fawson,
and Smith (2008) argue that students often do not have much guidance or accountability in
many independent riding protocols and suggest that providing greater structure and
accountability during independent reading will yield even more positive results in students’
reading outcomes.
When learning to drive I found that I practiced only on my family’s car for several weeks
before moving on to driving other cars. Reflecting back on this experience, it seems to me
that if I had moved from one car to another after only driving each car once I would have not
achieved a sense of mastery over the first car and experienced considerable difficulty quickly
switching to new cars as new each car would be somewhat different from the others. By
practicing only on one car for a period of time, I was able to master that car. Then, when I
finally transferred by driving skills to other cars, what I had learned on that initial car was able
to be transferred to other automobiles.
I think this repeated practice analogy also applies to reading. Many of our struggling
readers read a text only once during wide reading and they do not read it well. Yet, they
move on to a new text and read it once (and not very proficiently) as well. It will be difficult
for these students to achieve fluency in general, if they are not given opportunities to
achieve fluency over particular texts. Repeated practice on the same text (or car when
learning to drive) allows students to achieve this form of fluency or mastery than can easily
transfer to new, never-before-read texts.
In his landmark study on repeated readings (Samuels, 1979) had struggling readers read a
text repeatedly until they achieved a certain level of proficiency on that text. Of course with
practice they demonstrated improvement on the text practiced. The more interesting
finding from Samuels’ research was that when students moved on to new texts that were as
or more difficult than the previous text, there were vestiges of improvement on the new text
as well. In the same way that I was able to transfer skills from one automobile to another after
repeated practice of the first car, so to students are able to transfer competencies in reading
fluency from one text to another by engaging in repeated reading of the original text. In
their review of subsequent research on repeated reading with guidance and feedback
provided to students, Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, and Linan-Thompson (2011) conclude that
such practice “has been shown to effective in promoting fluency growth among a variety of
students across differing reading levels and text levels” (p. 301).
While repeated readings has been shown to be effective in improving reading, a problem
in implementing repeated reading has caused some educators to question its value. In many
programs for developing fluency, because automaticity is often measured by reading rate or
speed, the goal of the repeated reading is to increase students’ reading rate from one
reading to the next. This is not a terribly authentic reading experience as very few adult
reading experiences requires adults to practice a text repeatedly for the purpose of reading
the text fast. As mentioned earlier, the result of such overt emphasis on reading speed is a
diminished focus by students on prosody and meaning while readings.
It seems that a more authentic approach to repeated reading where adults do, indeed,
practice or rehearse a text. Rehearsal is truly a form of repeated reading where the rehearsal

9
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.7, Issue 1, 3-12,2014

is aimed at developing a prosodic and meaningful oral interpretation of the text. Texts that
are often rehearsed and then preformed for a listening audience include scripts, poetry, song
lyrics, speeches, and more. Several classroom-based studies have found that when students
engage in a more authentic repeated reading and performance experience they make
exceptional gains on various dimensions of reading, including measures of reading fluency
(Griffith & Rasinski, 2004; Martinez, Roser, & Strecker, 1999; Young & Rasinski, 2009).
Next Steps
It is clear that reading fluency is an important competency that needs to be addressed in the
literacy classrooms around the world. Research and scholarly writing have demonstrated
that fluency is conceptually an important reading competency, that it can be measured
relatively easily and quickly, and that instructional methods have been developed that have
shown to be effective in improving students’ fluency. Still, although much is known about
fluency, there are many questions and concerns that remain. Here are just a few based on my
own understanding of the concept.
First, the concept of fluency itself may be a source of confusion as it appears to include
two separate subordinate competencies (automaticity in word recognition and prosody) and
related to a second major competency (word recognition). For some scholars and
practitioners fluency in reading is automaticity, for others it is word recognition accuracy, for
still others it is prosody, and for some it simply means generally proficient reading. It may be
helpful if scholar began to sort these concepts out for clarity sake. One possibility would be
to simply refer to word recognition accuracy, word recognition automaticity, and prosody as
three distinct reading competencies. Reading fluency could then be used as a synonym for
overall proficient reading.
The role of text type and text difficulty clearly needs further consideration for fluency
development. In many existing programs for teaching fluency informational text is the
primary text students used. The rationale for using such texts is that greater emphasis is
being placed on students engaging in informational text reading, even in the primary
grades. While there are compelling reasons for students to read more informational texts, I
wonder if reading fluency instruction is good place for such texts to be used. Informational
texts are generally rather lengthy. If students are asked to engage in repeated readings, the
texts used cannot be excessively long as the repeated reading of a lengthy text would take
more time than what would normally be allotted for fluency instruction. Secondly, the nature
of informational texts does not easily lend themselves to expressive oral reading (prosody).
It may be wise to consider other text genres, genres that are meant to be performed
orally. If texts are meant to be read orally for an audience they need to rehearsed (repeated
reading) with the purpose of the rehearsal being expressive reading to aid the
understanding of the audience. As mentioned earlier, texts that are meant to be rehearsed
and performed include scripts, poetry, and song lyrics among others. Poetry and song lyrics
also have the added feature of being relatively short, making them ideal for repeated
reading over a short period of time. Interestingly though, these genres of texts have been
regularly reduced in terms of their perceived importance and inclusion in the elementary
grades.
Text level of difficulty is another issue that needs to be considered as we move forward in
fluency. Should students be asked to read easy texts or texts that considered more
challenging. On the surface it would seem that easier texts or texts that are within students’
instructional levels would be the appropriate choices as students are more likely to achieve
fluency more quickly on such texts. There is a body of scholarly thought and evidence to
support the use of such text levels especially with struggling readers (Hiebert & Mesmer,

10
 Fluency Matters / Rasinski

2013). However, in their review of fluency instruction, Kuhn and Stahl (2004) noted 6 studies
that found that students experienced greater benefits when the reading texts were
somewhat above the students’ instructional reading levels as opposed to when the materials
were below their instructional levels. Is it possible to accelerate students’ reading fluency
progress by providing them with materials to read, along with appropriate support, that are
above the level they normally would be asked to read instructionally? Clearly, this is an area
of great importance.
The issue of stamina in reading is one that has not been addressed sufficiently in fluency
research. In most studies fluency is assessed during the first minute of reading a text.
Moreover, fluency instruction generally occurs using relative short passages that can be read
in less than five minutes. We do not know the impact on fluency or fluency’s impact on
comprehension as students become more involved in a text at one setting. Does fluency
improve or decline in the 20th minute of reading?
Finally, reading fluency has been identified as a foundational reading competency that
should be mastered no later than grade 5 or below (Common Core State Standards Initiative,
2014). Yet, a growing body of research is demonstrating that significant numbers of students
have yet to achieve sufficient levels of fluency, both automaticity and prosody, in the middle
and secondary grades. Moreover, these students are likely to manifest difficulties in other
areas of reading including silent reading comprehension. How is it that so many students
appear to flow through the cracks? What can be done to assure that students attain and
maintain adequate levels of reading fluency beyond the primary grades? I truly believe that
reading educators can make a significant impact on student reading achievement and
academic achievement in other areas that require fluency when answers to these and other
questions can be found.
Despite the rocky road that reading fluency has traversed over the past several decades,
many reading scholars continue to view it a critical foundational competency for students to
achieve. Instructional methods and materials have been identified to improve fluency in
students, especially those students who struggle in gaining fluency. Not only can fluency
instruction be effective in improving students’ reading proficiency, it can also be an
authentic, engaging, and pleasurable experience for students. As Omar, a student whose
teacher used readers theatre scripts to improve his reading fluency and overall reading
performance, indicated, “Readers theatre is the funnest reading I ever did before” (Martinez,
Roser, & Stecker, 1999, p. 333).

• • •

Timothy RASINSKI is a professor of curriculum and instruction in the Reading and Writing Center at
Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA. His scholarly interests include reading fluency and students who
struggle in learning to read. He has written extensively on reading fluency and is author of The Fluent
Reader (Scholastic), a prominent professional book on fluency.

11
 International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.7, Issue 1, 3-12,2014

References
Allington, R., McGill-Franzen, A., Camilli, G., Williams, L., Graff, J., Zeig, J., Zmach, C., Nowak, R. (2010).
Addressing summer reading setback among cconomically disadvantaged elementary students.
Reading Psychology , 31(5), 411-427.
Chomsky, C. (1976). After decoding: What? Language Arts, 53, 288-296.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014). Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved
June 24, 2014 from: http://www.corestandards.org/.
Griffith, L. W., & Rasinski, T. V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher incorporated fluency with
her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 126-137.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006) Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading
teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.
Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Common Core State
Standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher, 42, 44-51.
Martinez, M., Roser, N., & Strecker, S. (1999). “I never thought I could be a star”: A Readers Theatre ticket
to reading fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52, 326-334.
LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S.A. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading.
Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Morgan, D., Mraz, M., Padak, N., & Rasinski, T. (2008). Independent Reading. New York, NY: Guilford.
Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T. V., & Magpuri-Lavell, T. (2012). Is fluent, expressive reading important for high
school readers? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 67–76.
Rasinski, T., & Hamman, P. (2010). Fluency: Why it is “Not Hot.” Reading Today, 28, 26.
Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. D. (1998). How elementary students referred for compensatory reading
instruction perform on school-based measures of word recognition, fluency, and comprehension.
Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 19, 185–216.
Reutzel, D. R., Jones, C., Fawson, P., & Smith, J. (2008), Scaffolded Silent Reading: A Complement to
Guided Repeated Oral Reading That Works!. The Reading Teacher, 62, 194–207.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408.
Schreiber, P. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 177-186.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the
development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Valencia, S. W., & Buly, M. R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The
Reading Teacher , 57, 520-531.
Yildirim, K., Ates, H., Rasinski, T., Fitzgerald, S., & Zimmerman, B. (2014). The relationship between
reading fluency and comprehension in fifth-grade Turkish students. International Journal of School
and Educational Psychology, 2(1), 35-44.
Young, C. and Rasinski, T. (2009), Implementing Readers Theatre as an Approach to Classroom Fluency
Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63, 4–13.

12