Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency - Wiley Online ...

than defining fluency as simultaneously decoding andcomprehending (Samuels, 2007), it can be argued thatfluent reading merely allows comprehension to occur(e.g., Levy, 2001). Just as readers’ fluency can vary withvarious texts (e.g., Allington, 2009; Hiebert, 2006), thatis, readers may be able to read independent level textswith good fluency yet be disfluent when reading textsthat are challenging in terms of vocabulary or content,it is also possible for readers’ comprehension of difficulttexts to vary despite their reading of these texts withadequate fluency.For example, let’s consider what happens when youread a complicated text, such as a theoretical paper. Asa reader with a strong background in the subject, youare likely to read that text fluently, that is accurately, ata good rate, and with appropriate parsing and cadence.But it is also likely that you will have only surfacelevelcomprehension on the initial reading. However,by rereading that text and grappling with its meaning,you will deepen your understanding of the material(Pressley, 2000). Similarly, even with relativelyeasy texts, say C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and theWardrobe, you and another reader with similar levels offluency may develop highly differing interpretations ofthe text depending on your varying background knowledge.At the same time, we do agree that “fluent” readingwithout any concomitant comprehension would bemerely word calling. So how do we rectify these potentiallydisparate understandings? Although it is reasonableto expect a basic level of comprehension beforeconsidering an individual’s reading fluent, if only toprevent the term from being equated with surface-levelfeatures (accuracy, speed, and expression), it is criticalnot to confound the two constructs given the complexitiesof both.Fluency as a Bridge to ComprehensionThe final definition we consider here views fluency asa bridge between decoding and comprehension (Chard,Pikulski, & McDonagh, 2006; Pikulski & Chard, 2005).This position indicates that fluency likely has a reciprocalrelationship with comprehension, both contributingto and possibly resulting from readers’ understandingof text (e.g., Klauda & Guthrie, 2008; Stecker, Roser,& Martinez, 1998). It also accounts for the theoreticaldiscussions surrounding automaticity and prosody, indicatingthat both aspects of the construct facilitate, andbenefit from, comprehension. Further, this definitionmoves away from what the authors call a surface conceptualizationof fluency; such an understanding seesthe construct primarily as an oral reading phenomenonand, as a result, has a tendency to stress its more concreteelements of accuracy, rate, and prosody throughboth assessment and instruction (Chard et al., 2006;Pikulski & Chard, 2005). Given most reading is silent,rather than oral, this insight is particularly important.Indeed, children are thought to make the transition topredominantly silent reading during late elementaryschool (Prior & Welling, 2001), generally around fourthgrade.Our DefinitionHaving reviewed multiple ways of conceptualizingreading fluency, we propose the following definition tosynthesize the information presented thus far:Fluency combines accuracy, automaticity, and oral readingprosody, which, taken together, facilitate the reader’s constructionof meaning. It is demonstrated during oral readingthrough ease of word recognition, appropriate pacing,phrasing, and intonation. It is a factor in both oral and silentreading that can limit or support comprehension.Although this definition is clearly influenced by thosepresented elsewhere (e.g., Harris & Hodges, 1995;Pikulski & Chard, 2005; Reutzel, 1996), it attempts toincorporate several critical points. First, it highlightsthe relationship between fluency and comprehension.Next, it emphasizes prosody along with accurate andautomatic word recognition without privileging any ofthese components. Third, it begins to address the understandingthat fluency plays a role in silent as wellas oral reading. Finally, it attempts to reconceptualizetwo aspects of the construct that have the potential tobe problematic when taken in isolation from the rest ofthe components: rate and expression. We also recognizethat there may be a reciprocal relationship between fluencyand comprehension; however, this issue requiresfurther research. As such, we have chosen not to includereciprocity in our definition.When discussing oral reading fluency in terms ofassessment and instruction (e.g., Mathson, Allington, &Solic, 2006; Samuels, 2007), there has been a tendencyto focus on decoding speed at the expense of prosody.This results in students being encouraged to read as fastas possible rather than at a rate that replicates oral language;the hope is that the use of the term appropriatepacing over rate has the potential to begin addressingthis misconception. The second aspect that can leadto problems of interpretation is the use of the term expressivereading as an equivalent of prosody. Althoughexpression is an accurate term for many types of texts(e.g., narratives, plays, poetry), it has been argued that itis inappropriate for informational text. However, thesetexts have their own prosodic indicators (e.g., Carlsonet al., 2009; den Ouden et al., 2009), so it may be thatthe term intonation is more precise than is expressionfor describing the suprasegmental features that occuras part of the reading of informational text. It may bethat the use of these alternative terms to describe fluent240Reading Research Quarterly • 45(2)