Fluency Instruction in First Grade

Introduction
As a first-grade reading teacher, I am continually listening to children read aloud and
analyzing their oral reading for accuracy and fluency, while also checking for comprehension of
the written material. I have consistent and methodical practice in place for correcting and
improving reading errors and comprehension, yet oral reading fluency continues to be a
challenge for many students.
In the past, when a students reading rate was not meeting expected fluency
benchmarks, I have given occasional and inconsistent verbal cues or had the student reread a
sentence or paragraph to improve the reading rate and make it sound smoother. As I strive to be
an ethical teacher, I need to acknowledge the areas of my instruction that are not fulfilling
students needs, and research and implement explicit instructional methods to foster fluency
development.
Review of Literature
I believe methodical and explicit fluency instruction is necessary for students to continue
proper literacy development. As I began researching the wide topic of oral reading fluency, I
focused on examining instructional strategies that improve oral reading rates and could be
implemented into small guided reading groups during the literacy block in the first-grade
classroom.
Notlemeyer, Joseph, and Watson (2014) examined the effectiveness of phrase drill (PD),
repeated reading (RR), and listening passage preview (LPP) for increasing oral reading prosody
and oral fluency retell. The study was conducted in two primary schools in the same midwest
suburban school district during three weeks of summer school. The four participants (two male

and two female) had just completed their second grade year and were identified as reading
below grade-level benchmarks.
The first intervention, repeated reading (RR) 3X, involved multiple opportunities for the
participants to practice the same grade-level reading passage aloud. Interventionists timed the
first read and participants read 50% past their baseline mean of correct words per minute
(CWPM) and initial prosody scores were noted on a rubric. Then participants reread the same
passage three more times. Following that, participants were asked to give an oral retell and
were scored using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) retell fluency
assessment and then rated again on oral reading prosody.
The second intervention, repeated reading (RR) plus listening passage preview (LPP)
included modeling the passage correctly using appropriate prosody. First, participants read the
grade-level passage aloud, again to 50% past their baseline mean of CWPM and then initial
prosody was scored. Next, the interventionist read the passage aloud as the participant
followed along silently. Finally, the participant read the passage aloud and was assessed on
prosody and retell fluency.
The third intervention, Repeated reading (RR) plus phrase drill (PD) provided an
opportunity to acknowledge errors and correct them. Like the other interventions, this one
began with reading a grade-level passage aloud to 50% past their baseline mean of CWPM. As
the participant read, the examiner would highlight any errors that were read in the first minute.
After mistakes were identified, the examiner read them aloud, asking the participant to repeat,
and then also used them in phrases and had the participant repeat the correct phrase three
times. Following this, the entire passage was read one more time to assess prosody and oral
retell fluency.
The results of these interventions in regards to oral retell fluency found that there was
much variability in performance among the participants, so there was not a definitive conclusion
drawn on the most effective intervention for helping students recall details in the passages.

Additionally, when researchers examined the results of the prosody outcomes, no noticeable
differences in effectiveness were noted between the three different interventions. However, all
participants experienced an improvement in prosody from the first reading to the final, so the
authors suggested that the increase in prosody is a result of the repeated readings that were a
part of every intervention. From this study, I concluded that repeated readings of any sort (RR
3X, RR+LPP, or RR+PD) will likely improve students oral reading prosody.
As I considered the outcome of the previous study, I wanted to further examine how
repeated readings compare to other types of fluency interventions. Hawkins, Marsicano,
Schmitt, McCallum, and Musti-Rao (2015) compared the effectiveness and efficiency of
repeated reading and listening-while-reading as ways to improve fluency and comprehension.
The study was conducted in a midwestern urban charter school with 92% of the population on
free and/or reduced lunch. Four male African American fourth-grade students participated in the
study; all were selected after their fall Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
reading fluency measures scored in the some risk or low risk categories. The study was
conducted over 12 weeks, with students in session one to two times per week for five to 20
minutes at a time. During these sessions, students took part in both the repeated reading (RR)
and listening-while-reading (LWR) interventions. While in the RR intervention, the researcher
gave the student a 4th-grade equivalent passage that he would read aloud three times. If an
error was made, the researcher immediately stopped the student and shared the correct word.
After reading the passage aloud three times, the student was given a Maze comprehension task
(select the correct word out of three to fill in the blanks in the paragraph) based on the passage
read and finally, an oral reading fluency (ORF) time was done on the same passage. Students
also participated in the LWR intervention, where the researcher instructed the student to read
the passage aloud three times while listening to the passage begin read on the MP3 player.
Following this, the same procedures were followed with the Maze comprehension task and ORF
assessment.

Researchers found that both RR and LWR yielded similar improved levels in ORF for all
students who participated. However, when the amount of time students spent in each
intervention was considered, it was suggested that LWR was a more efficient way of improving
fluency. From this study, I learned that both repeated readings and listening-while-reading are
effective fluency interventions; however, listening-while-reading is the more efficient intervention.
The previous study indicated that listening to another reader model fluent reading
produced positive improvements in oral reading fluency (ORF). Montgomerie, Little, and AkinLittle (2014) examined if video self-modeling (VSM) was also effective in improving ORF. This
study was conducted in the Hawkes Bay area of New Zealand and included students in Year
Three, ranging in age from seven to eight. The participants were identified as being struggling
readers, but were not in any interventions at the time the study was conducted.
Researchers began with collecting baseline data by having students read slightly abovelevel reading passages aloud for one minute. Two passages were read and the mean of the
two was taken as the students words correct per minute (WCPM) rate. If the student said a
word wrong, the examiner corrected him/her and if the student paused for more than three
seconds, the examiner told the student the word. Participants were videotaped during these
baseline sessions, and then researchers edited the video using iMovie to create a video of the
student reading the passages fluently. Following this, students watched their own videos of
fluent reading before school daily for two weeks. There was a mid-intervention one-minute oral
reading fluency check, as well as a post-intervention check.
The data demonstrated that all students made gains in their oral reading fluency,
increasing between three and a half and ten words read correctly per minute, with three out of
four participants increasing the WCPM rate between eight and ten. The authors noted that
none of the participants maintained their gained fluency levels; the post-intervention data
indicated inconsistent performance as students started moving away from the intervention. In
examining this study, I learned that there can be alternative ways to model oral reading fluency,

one of which that doesnt involve an adult sitting with the child every time. I also considered the
importance of the students ability to maintain and apply their fluency to other texts after the
intervention is complete.
Conclusion
As I prepare to implement my improvement plan for the upcoming year, the first step will
be to assess my students reading rate. It is protocol in my district not to assess fluency until the
second half of the first grade year. Therefore, in January, I will listen to each student read aloud
in a quiet environment using a good-fit text. During this reading, I will gather baseline data by
timing students oral reading fluency (ORF) rate for one minute. I will use that time, as well as
my observation of students oral reading fluency to determine which students will be a part of the
fluency instructional group that will be created. The fluency group will have at least one and up
to four students.
When examining the research to determine the type of fluency instruction I want to
implement, I noted that Montgomerie, Little, and Akin-Little (2014) concluded that oral reading
fluency results were not maintained long-term once students were moved away from the twoweek intervention that utilized Video Self-Modeling. Based on this information, I decided the
fluency instructional group should provide on-going support throughout the year as students
need it. All students in my class get assessed four times per year on accuracy and
comprehension of good-fit texts. During those cold-reads, I will also time students for one
minute on ORF rates and observe fluency behaviors to determine if students are ready to exit
the instructional group or if other students will be given a higher priority due to need.
Once students are selected to participate in the instructional fluency group, I will create a
fifteen-minute time slot during my literacy block three times per week for those students to meet
with me and work specifically on oral reading fluency, with the goal of improving oral reading
rate. Hawkins, Marsicano, Schmitt, McCallum, and Musti-Rao (2015) found that both repeated
readings and listening-while-reading were effective interventions, but noted that listening-while-

reading was more effective in that it produced positive results in less time than repeated
readings alone. Additionally, the authors noted that listening-while-reading is more efficient,
because it does not require an adult to be sitting right next to the student, since students are
listening to a recorded reading of the text on an MP3 player. WIth this information in mind, as
well as the finding of Notlemeyer, Joseph, and Watson (2014) that repeated readings will likely
improve students oral reading prosody, I have decided that I will implement explicit fluency
instruction that includes listening-while-reading and repeated readings as the primary
components.
I will select a high-interest, good-fit text for each student that he/she will work on each
week, so not all students in the group will work on the same text. The texts will vary from fiction
to nonfiction and include poetry, fantasy, folktales, informational text, and riddles. Prior to
Monday each week, I will have recorded the text fluently on the iPod for each student. Upon
arrival at the guided reading table, students will whisper-voice read the selected text and I will
time each of them for one-minute and record their words correct per minute rate. Students will
then be able to able to take the iPod to an alternative location in the classroom and fluently
reread the text three times aloud while listening to the recording.

During this time, I will pull

students individually (once per week) to listen to them read the passage, and provide
appropriate instruction and goal-setting on phrasing, acknowledging punctuation, intonation, and
other aspects of fluency development. I will keep anecdotal records of these conferences and
my observations, and will refer back to previous weeks conferences when I work with students
each week.
I will know the fluency instruction has a positive impact on student progress through
improved oral reading fluency rates on timed readings that will be administered at the beginning
of each week. My schools goal is for students to read 68 words correct per minute by the end
of the 1st grade year, so that will be the goal for all students; however, I will recognize progress

towards that goal and consider students baseline scores and growth when reflecting on the
success of the intervention.
One challenge that I anticipate may occur is a student not actively engaged and focused
on his/her listening-while-reading task when sent out in the classroom to do the three readings.
If that is the case, I have certain placements within my classroom (and in close proximity to the
the reading table I will be sitting at) that would allow me to more closely monitor that students
work time. I also anticipate that students may lose interest in the listening-while-reading task as
time goes on, so it will be critical that I provide a variety of high-interest texts for students; part
of my ability to do this will be dependent upon my knowledge of each students likes and
interests.
As a first-grade teacher, I encounter students each year that struggle with oral reading
fluency and low oral reading rate. It is my responsibility as an educator to be meeting the needs
of my students, and through reviewing literature on the topic and considering my students and
classroom setup, I am certain I can make a positive change in students oral reading fluency by
implementing a fluency-specific instructional group into my literacy block. I look forward to
monitoring student progress and am optimistics that I will see positive changes in students oral
reading rate.

References
Hawkins, R. O., Marsicano, R., Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., & Musti-Rao, S. (2015). Comparing the
efficiency of repeated reading and listening-while-reading to improve fluency and
comprehension. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(1), 49-70.

Montgomerie, R., Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2014). Video self-modeling as an intervention for
oral reading fluency. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 18-27.

Noltemeyer, A., Joseph, L. M., & Watson, M. (2014). Improving reading prosody and oral retell
fluency: A comparison of three intervention approaches. Reading Improvement, 51(2), 221-232.