Real-Life Reading Inquiry

For my Real-Life Reading Inquiry assignment, I worked with two third-grade students at a local elementary school.  I wanted to explore reading fluency and methods of assessing it.  Of the two students, one was considered to have high fluency while the other was considered to have low fluency according to their teacher.  I spent one-on-one time with each student in a quiet location.  I had them read to me from books from their book boxes, read passages at their grade level that I supplied in order to calculate their WCPM (words correct per minute), and asked follow-up questions about what they read to me.  Through these methods, I was able to better understand their reading fluency levels.

First, let me provide the results of each student’s assessments.  Both read the same grade-level appropriate passage, but ended with different WCPMs.  The high-fluency student read 146 words correctly in one minute and 141 words correctly per minute when including the duration it took to read the entire passage.  This student read with 99.6% accuracy.  Conversely, the low-fluency student read 84 words correctly in one minute and 74 WPCM for the entire passage.  This student read with 98.4% accuracy.  The high-fluency student read above and the low-fluency student read within the normal oral fluency range for third-graders which is 44-99 WCPM according to Theresa Deeney in her 2010 article “One-Minute Fluency Measures: Mixed Messages in Assessment and Instruction” (446).   Deeney also notes that one-minute assessments fail to note how readers perform over an extended period of  time (447).  My observations agree with her statement; although it is slight and still within normal range, both students show a decline in their number of WCPM when assessed for a time greater than one minute.

My results from above made me question why their teacher had placed the students at two different levels of reading fluency even though both were reading within normal ranges.  Timothy Rasinski notes in his 2004 article “Creating Fluent Readers” that an additional dimension of reading fluency is prosodic reading (46).  One way he suggests measuring this is by using the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (49).  This rubric aids teachers in measuring expression/volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace of students’ reading.  Through continued observations and using the scale, I began noticing several differences in the students that helped me better understand why they had varying fluency levels.   

For example, the low-fluency student read simply to get the words out, did not fluctuate their voice, spoke quietly, struggled with several words and needed help figuring them out, and read at a rather slow pace.  Using the scale, they scored around a nine out of sixteen.  The high-fluency student was quite the opposite.  They read with lots of expression, at a conversation-like volume and pace, read in sentence units, and were able to resolve any difficulties on their own.  Their score was a sixteen out of sixteen.  Rasinski states that “scores of eight or above indicate that the student is making good progress in fluency” (49).  Though both are improving, I find it amazing how much more information this scale provided compared to simply using a one-minute assessment.  After this assessment, it was much clearer that the high-fluency student has made more progress than the low-fluency student.  Additionally, I could better pinpoint what aspects of fluency the low-fluency student struggled most with such as expression and pace.

Deeney also notes that fluency includes comprehension (440).  By asking questions about the passages and observing, I was able to get an idea of each student’s level of comprehension.  The high-fluency student was quickly able to answer simple questions and was eager to make comments.  They even connected the passage to a similar event in their own life.  In addition, they laughed as they were reading when humorous parts occurred which indicated to me that they were comprehending while reading.  The low-fluency student, however, was less able to answer questions or discuss the passage which made me question whether he understood what he had read.  By looking into their level of comprehension, I realized that it is an important factor in determining reading fluency and problems that might be hindering a student's ability to become a fluent reader.    

During my observations and interactions with these two students, I was able to better understand how to go about measuring reading fluency.  I realized that it is a complex concept that includes not only accuracy, but also rate, prosody, and comprehension.  While a one-minute assessment gave me a basic understanding of their fluency, I agree with Deeney and Rasinski that further observations provide even more useful information.  I see the benefits of measuring the multiple dimensions of fluency, because it identifies the specific areas students are either struggling or excelling in.  In turn, this information allows teachers to provide the proper instruction students need in order to improve and become more fluent readers.  As a future educator, I plan on implementing assessments that take into account all the dimensions of fluency in order to best evaluate and instruct my students.