The Oklahoma Reader 58-1 Spring 2022

Timothy Rasinski

Invited ArticleTeaching the Art and Science of Foundational Reading—Phonics to Fluency

Over the past several years an approach to reading instruction has emerged called the Science of Reading (SOR) (Shanahan, 2021). Science of Reading advocates argue that there is now sufficient scientific knowledge about how people read and how people learn to read that instruction in teaching reading should be guided by this science. The genesis for this approach can be traced back to the National Reading Panel (2000), a group of literacy experts who were assigned the task of identifying the science-verified components of reading that are necessary for children to become proficient readers. Nearly every teacher of reading has since become familiar with those components—phonemic awareness, phonics or word decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

The concept of the SOR, however, may pose a challenge when it comes to turning the SOR into actionable reading instruction. The Science of Reading is based, to a large extent, on scientific research into the competencies that must be mastered in order to achieve proficiency in reading. However, SOR does not provide much direction into how those competencies should be taught to students (Shanahan, 2021). Very often the implication for instruction is that the SOR competency be taught using approaches that are direct, systematic, and, for students who are struggling, intensive. How does such instruction actually play out in classrooms? What seems to be the result is instruction that may be direct and systematic but involves teachers in reading instructional scripts, students engaged in drill-like activities that do not appear to resemble actual reading, and when permitted to read given “decodable” texts that appear to more resemble passages designed to give students practice in reading certain phonics elements than authentic stories or texts that readers can find enjoyable and take satisfaction in.

Take, for instance, the competency of reading fluency. First, scientific research has demonstrated that reading speed as measured by the number of words read correctly on a leveled reading passage is a valid measure of one aspect of fluency called automaticity in word recognition. Studies at various grade levels have found a strong correlation between speed of reading (oral reading fluency—ORF) and overall reading proficiency (Rasinski et al., 2011).

Scientific research has also found that assisted reading and repeated reading are valid and effective ways for improving reading fluency, as well as word recognition and comprehension (Rasinski, 2010). Assisted reading occurs when a reader reads a text while simultaneously listening to a fluent reading of the same text. That listening could be from a more fluent reading partner such as a teacher or parent sitting next to the student or even listening to a pre-recorded version of the text. Repeated reading, as the name implies, involves repeated practice of a text until the student is able to read the text at a normal level of fluency. Research has demonstrated

that when students engage in repeated and assisted reading, not only do they improve their performance on the texts practiced, but there is also a generalized improvement on new passages not previously read.

These scientific findings—how fluency-automaticity is measured and how fluency can be developed—has led to the development of SOR instructional programs that aim directly to increase reading speed through assisted and repeated reading. Fluency instruction becomes a daily routine in which students engage in assisted and repeated reading for the expressed purpose of reading the text faster with every reading. Indeed, students are assessed regularly, in some cases weekly, in order to check increases in their reading speed.

My response to this approach to instruction is that it may be based on science, but to what extent is it based on reality? How often do people at any age practice reading texts for the main purpose of reading the texts fast? Not often. Renowned literacy researcher S. Jay Samuels (2007) has argued that such instruction changes the nature of reading instruction to something akin to “barking at print.” Moreover, the research into fluency instruction approaches such as these do show improvements in students’ reading speed which is then offered as scientific support for the instruction. However, the research on the extent to which such instruction leads to improvement in comprehension and overall reading proficiency and satisfaction is limited at best.

Additionally, this approach to teaching fluency neglects another scientifically validated part of fluency—prosody. Prosody involves oral reading with a level of expression that reflects the meaning of the text (Rasinski, 2010). Some have termed prosody the melody of reading. Research has shown that readers who read with good phrasing and expression are more proficient in comprehension in overall reading than readers who read without expression and in a word-by-word staccato style (Rasinski et al., 2011). How is it that young readers can develop their prosodic or expressive reading when the focus on their fluency instruction is on reading as fast as they can? It seems that a focus on speed and a focus on meaningful expression are in opposition to one another.

Literacy scholar Tim Shanahan has argued that in addition to the Science of Reading we need a Science of Reading Instruction (Shanahan, 2021). We need to know more than the key competencies and elements involved in proficient reading; we need scientific research to show us instructional approaches to teach these competencies and produce the desired outcomes— proficiency in the individual competency AND in overall reading proficiency.

Toward an Art and Science of Reading Instruction

I would take Shanahan’s argument a bit further to suggest that we also need scientifically verified approaches to instruction that are also authentic, aesthetic, and that give teachers freedom to use their creativity in designing such instruction, as opposed to following some script or routine. This is what I and my colleagues (Paige, et al., 2021; Young et al., 2022) have come to call the Art and Science of Teaching Reading.

Although it may be easier to define a science of reading instruction than it is an art of reading instruction, I feel that there are three characteristics or principles that make reading instruction artful (Young et al., 2022). First is authenticity—reading instruction should look like reading and reading related activities that are done in real life—outside the classroom. We want students to make the connections between what they are doing in their classroom with what they see happening beyond the classroom walls. If students are unable to make such connections, they are not likely to see the relevance of what they are learning. To what extent do students, or anyone for that matter, see phonics drills or reading speed for fluency activities happening in their lives outside of school? Probably not much, and it is not inappropriate for them to ask why they need to engage in such activities in school if they have little or no relevance outside their classrooms.

The second principle of artistic instruction is aesthetics. By aesthetics I refer to the work of Louise Rosenblatt (1978) who argued that reading should be both efferent and aesthetic. At the risk of oversimplifying, efferent reading is essentially reading to learn or to educate the mind. Aesthetic reading, on the other hand, is reading for beauty or to touch the heart. It seems that reading instruction and reading in schools themselves have become increasingly focused on the efferent dimension of reading. The increased focus on informational texts is evidence of this movement. While I acknowledge the importance of efferent reading, I also see the need for reading to be aesthetic. How many of us have had our hearts touched by a favorite song, perhaps a heartfelt poem, or inspiring story. The same type of texts that bring us to tears need also to be shared with students.

Children need the same opportunities to have their hearts touched by inspiring words, poetry, songs, famous speeches (e.g., “Gettysburg Address,” “I Have a Dream”) and other such texts. These types of texts, however, seem to have been less emphasized in many current reading programs and classrooms. Artful reading instruction says we need to find ways to bring these into our classrooms and share with students.

Third, artistic instruction is defined by creativity. Currently, in many science-oriented reading instruction approaches teachers are taught to teach in very prescribed ways with little room for individuality or creativity. While the science of reading should provide guidance to the overall aims and approaches to reading instruction, artfulness should allow teachers freedom to use their creativity to deliver that instruction in ways that meet the individual needs of students. Moreover, artful instruction should also allow students freedom to express themselves in creative ways themselves.

Take for example, the instruction in phonics and word decoding. One scientifically validated approach to such instruction is termed word building (McCandliss et al., 2003). In this approach students are guided in building a series of words by changing, adding, or subtracting one or two letters from the previously made word. An example is to start with the word dog and from there build the following words: dot, pot, pet, pen, pin, pit, hit, hot. The words can be made by manipulating letter tiles and/or having students write the words. Research has shown that

doing this on a regular basis improves students’ phonemic awareness, word decoding, and comprehension.

The word building activity is game-like in that it involves manipulation of letters to make words much as one would do in playing word games such as Scrabble, Words with Friends, or, more recently, Wordle. Being the lexophile (word lover) that I am, I decided to take this scientific approach and turn it into a game; the results are daily word ladders (Rasinski, 2005a, 2005b, 2008). A word ladder is a form of word building with the added features of providing students with meaning related clues and making the first and last words go together in some way. For example, here is an example of a word ladder, starting with the word at the top and working down.

1. Dog Change 1 letter in dog to make what you do with a shovel.

2. Dig Change 1 letter in dig to make a farm animal that oinks and gives us pork.

3. Pig Change 1 letter in pig to make a hole in the ground.4. Pit Change 1 letter in pit to make what you do in a chair.

5. Sit Change 1 letter in sit to make what a baseball player does with a bat.

6. Hit Change 1 letter in hit to make something you wear on your head when the weather is bad.

7. Hat Add 1 letter to hat to make a word that means to have an informal talk or conversation with someone.

8. Chat Take away 1 letter from chat to make an animal that dogs typically do not like.

9. Cat

In going from dog to cat teachers can guide students in learning and reinforcing the decoding structure, spelling, and meaning to 9 words. Moreover, students find enjoyment in finding out what the last word in the ladder is. Science tells us that word ladders (word building) does produce positive results in reading related competencies. Art tells us that students take enjoyment and satisfaction from playing with and learning about words and language.

Art and Science of Teaching Reading Fluency

Teachers need to be both artists and scientists in their instruction. How can this happen? Let’s take the critical competency of reading fluency—both scientifically and artfully. Research and reviews of research have demonstrated the importance of reading fluency in developing proficient readers (Rasinski et al., 2011).

Fluency has been described as the necessary bridge from word decoding to comprehension. Automatic word recognition is that part of fluency that connects to word decoding or phonics. It is not sufficient for readers to be able to decode words accurately; they need to be able to decode words effortlessly or automatically. The theory behind automaticity suggests that readers have a limited amount of attention or cognitive resources to apply to the act of reading. If they have to use too much of these resources for word decoding (think of readers who read in an excessively slow and halting manner), they will have less available for comprehension, the goal of reading. As a result, comprehension suffers. However, when word decoding is automatic (think reading that is relatively quick and smooth), readers do not have to employ much of their cognitive resources for word decoding. Those freed-up resources can be devoted to making sense of the text and, as a consequence, comprehension is facilitated.

Reading fluency is complicated by a second component—prosody or expression in reading. When reading orally (or silently for that matter) readers use their expression to reflect the meaning of the text. They add dramatic pauses in their reading, they change the tone, the speed, the volume, and the phrasing of the text to reflect the meaning of the text. Prosody, then, is the part of the fluency bridge that connects to comprehension. For in order to read with appropriate expression, a reader needs to be developing and monitoring the meaning of the text while reading.

Scientific research has demonstrated that readers who read with high levels of automaticity, as measured by words read correctly per minute, have higher levels of comprehension than readers who demonstrate lower levels of automaticity in their reading. Scientific research has also demonstrated that higher levels of expression or prosody in oral reading is reflected in higher levels of comprehension. In sum, readers who are fluent, who read with good levels of automaticity and prosody, tend to be proficient readers (Rasinski et al., 2011). That’s science!

But how do we actually put this scientific knowledge into authentic instructional practice. Too often, the simple solution is to focus on the outcome measures for fluency. If we measure the automaticity component of reading fluency by measuring reading speed, then instruction in fluency becomes focused on having students engage in repeated readings of a text to increase their reading speed. We see this in instructional activities that include timed readings in which students are encouraged to read faster than the day before.

How is such practice a measure of real life—authenticity? Where in real life do readers practice their reading in order to increase reading speed? I would answer—“not often.” Moreover, when readers are focused on ever faster reading, how are they able to work on prosodic reading—reading with a level of phrasing and expression that reflects the meaning of the text? It appears that in such an instructional scenario the components of fluency, automaticity and prosody, are incompatible.

Let’s take another look at instruction in fluency—artful instruction (Paige, et al., 2021; Young et al., 2022)! Scientific research (Rasinski et al., 2011) tells us that two approaches for

developing fluency are repeated readings and assisted readings. Repeated reading is having students read a text multiple times until they are able to read the text at a level of fluency that approaches that of a proficient reader. In assisted reading, less fluent readers read a text while simultaneously hearing a fluent reading or rendering of the text. That fluent reading can be made by another person (parent, teacher, classroom volunteer), a group of others as in choral reading, or an audio recording of the text made previously.

Another, and more artful way, of considering repeated and assisted reading is to think of it as rehearsal. In rehearsal, actors practice (repeated and assisted reading) a text for the purpose of eventually performing the text for an audience. The repeated and assisted practice is not aimed at reading fast but at providing a performance that is sufficiently prosodic to be meaningful and satisfying to an audience. Thus, in this artful form of fluency instruction automaticity is developed by the repeated and assisted rehearsal of text, and prosody is developed by the focus of the repeated and assisted rehearsal that is aimed at delivering a performance that is meaningful and through which expressive interpretation of the text enhances and amplifies the intended meaning.

Of course, this leads to an artful question—are there certain texts that are meant to be read/performed orally and expressively for an audience (Young & Nageldinger, 2017)? While informational and narrative texts could certainly be read with expression, they would not be my first choice. Texts such as poetry, song lyrics, speeches, and readers theater scripts are more conducive to rehearsal and performance. If you’ve ever been in a play, recited a poem at a poetry café, or given a speech to an audience my guess is that you rehearsed it. Moreover, your rehearsal wasn’t aimed at reading fast but at reading in such a way as to deliver meaning to those who would be listening to your performance.

This notion of rehearsal and performance is a more artful approach to reading fluency instruction. It is authentic in that this type of activity happens in the real world—think theater performances. It is aesthetic in that the texts being performed are those that have the ability to garner an emotional reaction from those performing or listening to the performance (all of us have a certain song or poem that brought us to tears; many of us have attended theatrical plays or listened to a speech that evoked an emotion response). And this approach to fluency instruction offers opportunities for creativity. Teachers and students can write their own poems, songs, or scripts based on material they have previously read or on their own experiences. Moreover, students rehearsing and performing such material have creative license to interpret the texts in various ways through their oral performances.

But, equally important, is this notion of rehearsal and performance scientific? Is there evidence that rehearsing and performing in this artful way lead to improved reading? The answer to that question is yes. An ever growing body of research published in peer-reviewed journals has shown that rehearsal and performance leads to improvements in fluency (both automaticity and prosody) as well as reading comprehension and overall reading proficiency (Young & Rasinski, 2009; Young & Rasinski, 2018; Young et al., 2019; Zimmerman et al., 2019). Moreover, the research has demonstrated that this artistic approach to fluency is also

motivating and satisfying for students involved in such instruction. As one student said after being involved in a readers theater program, “I never thought I could be a star, but I was the best reader today” (Martinez et al., 1999).

Teaching Reading Must be Scientific and Artful

Teaching reading is hard work. A good teacher must be both scientist and artist. Science has already weighed in on what students must develop in order to become proficient readers— phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. The artistic challenge to teachers is to develop instruction that achieves the scientific goals in ways that are aesthetic, authentic, and creative. Rather than hobbling teachers with “scientifically based approaches” that require strict adherence to a curriculum developed by outsiders without regard for individual teaching styles and students’ instructional needs, teachers must be given the professional support AND the artistic freedom to create such instruction. Teaching reading must be considered more than a skill, it must also be recognized as an art.

References

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.

McCandliss, B., Beck, I., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Studies in Reading, 7, 75-104.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Report of the subgroups. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health.

Paige, D. D., Young, C., Rasinski, T. V., Rupley, W. H., Nichols, W. D., & Valerio, M. (2021). Teaching reading is more than a science: It’s also an art. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), S339-S350. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.388

Rasinski, T. (2005a). Daily Word Ladders-Grades 2-4. Scholastic.Rasinski, T. (2005b). Daily Word Ladders- Grades 4-6. Scholastic.Rasinski, T. (2008). Daily Word Ladders- Grades 1-2. Scholastic.

Rasinski, T. V. (2010). The fluent reader: Oral and silent reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2 nd ed.). Scholastic.

Rasinski, T. V., Reutzel, C. R., Chard, D. & Linan-Thompson, S. (2011). Reading Fluency. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach E (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Volume IV (pp. 286-319). Routledge.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, and the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Southern Illinois University Press.

Samuels, S. J. (2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by fluency? Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 563-566.

Shanahan, T. (2021, Nov 6). What is the Science of Reading? Shanahan on Literacy. https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/what-is-the-science-of-reading- 1#sthash.HzLZUTFg.dpbs

Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2009). Implementing readers theatre as an approach to classroom fluency instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4–13.

Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2018). Readers Theatre: effects on word recognition automaticity and reading prosody. Journal of Research in Reading, 41, 475-485.

Young, C., Durham, P., Miller, M., Rasinski, T., & Lane, F. (2019). Improving reading comprehension with readers theater. Journal of Educational Research, 112:5, 615-626, doi: 10.1080/00220671.2019.1649240

Young, C., & Nageldinger, J. (2017). Considering the context and texts for fluency: Performance, readers theater, and poetry. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 47-56. Retrieved from https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/63

Young, C., Paige, D., & Rasinski, T. (2022). Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading. Routledge.

Dr. Timothy Raskinski is a renowned Professor of Literacy Education at Kent State University and formerly director of its Reading and Writing Development Center. He is past president of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers, a member of the International Reading Hall of Fame, and one of the top two percent of scientists worldwide. He can be reached at trasinsk@kent.edu.