Fluency Practice Should Build Readers, Not Just Scores

When it comes to literacy instruction, there tends to be a lot of back and forth.  Which is caused in large part by overcompensation.  Meaing we tend to really spotlight one thing, taking up a larger portion of our time. This thereby limits (or even eliminates) the time we have for other things that also matter a lot. The pendulum swings because eventually, there’s a realization that what we’ve neglected is in fact very important. So we bring it back–often with a hyperfocus.  Which then diminishes time for other things.  An endless, viscous cycle.

We all see this happening right now with phonics instruction.  But it’s also happening with fluency practice.

With the more prevalent use of screening measures like phonics and oral reading fluency (ORF) assessments, a spotlight is shone on the discreet skills these assessments measure. 

These are great pieces of data that all come together to tell more of the story of a reader.

But..they can also lead teachers to think they need to drill the skills these assessments capture more heavily in the classroom.  

Phonics is a prime example.  Many screeners use some degree of nonsense words.  This is great as part of an assessment, but these words are not meant to be used for instruction. Dr. Stephanie Stoller says that “There is no reason to practice reading nonsense words, to send a list of nonsense words home for practice, or to use nonsense words as the focus of instruction. While there isn’t anything wrong with occasionally using a nonsense word when rhyming, generating word families, or when working with older struggling readers, the emphasis should be on teaching reading with real words.” Tim Shanahan warns that this practice can even be “harmful to kids.”  

But, because they’re on the test, we see nonsense words brought into instruction anyway.  Right now, there are over 14,000 products sold on TPT for nonsense word practice.  Nonsense word practice that only takes away time for other, more meaningful work, like application of phonics skills to actual reading and writing.  

Unfortunately, phonics isn’t the only place we see unnecessary test-like drills overtaking teachers’ time.

Fluency measures can lead teachers to overemphasize fluency drill practice. 

Teachers can become alarmed by low scores and dive headfirst into increasing them.  

There is much reason to worry about fluency.  It’s even one of the five big pillars of reading instruction according to the National Reading Panel.  But ORF screeners primarily measure only rate and to some degree, accuracy (insertions are not considered errors on ORF measures like DIBELS).  

So out come the passages and the timers.  Teachers can end up spending a lot of time pushing students to become faster and faster on these drills.  Some teachers even have students chart their progress.  While this is intended to serve as motivation to help students work harder to increase their fluency, there’s a major cost-benefit consideration.

Yes, all this practice with fluency drills will improve speed. Accuracy will also improve because of all the rereading.

But this isn’t teaching fluency.  It’s just assessing it.  Over and over and over. 

What’s more, there is much that can be diminished or not happen at all because of the time spent on fluency drills.  

Here are some questions to ask ourselves to guide instructional time decisions:

• Are students given ample time to read whole texts, not just passges, decodable or otherwise? (These are all FULL of authentic opportunity to build fluency).

• Is time for making sense of text diminished because of the time spent on drills that push speed only?

• Is time for other aspects of literacy cut short because of the time spent on drills?  

• Are students getting the idea that reading is about speed, not understanding?  A good indication that this is the case is that students must track their rate progress.

• Do students understand that fluency is about far more than rate?

• Do they understand that fluency is a means to an end–comprehension–and not an end in and of itself?

Our time with students is fleeting.  We have to make the very most of it.  

This means keeping the major goals for reading in mind.  Reading is about making meaning.  It’s not about getting through the text quickly or merely pronouncing words.  We can improve it all through the use of real, interesting texts rather than disconnected, isolated drill practice.

The tests we give that measure discreet skills are only meant to be signals to us to help guide our instruction.  Instruction that includes helping students more accurately pronounce words and read with strong prosody at a just-right rate, using actual texts that kids can make sense of. 

Not instruction that focuses on isolated real or nonsense word reading or endless timed short passages.  Application of skills with real texts, read for a real purpose is the way to help students improve. This can and should happen while maintaining what reading is really all about:  making sense of the text.

---

Who is Coach from the Couch??  I’m Michelle Ruhe, a 25+ year veteran educator, currently a K-5 literacy coach.  I continue to learn alongside teachers in classrooms each and every day, and it’s my mission to support as many teachers as I can. 

Because no one can do this work alone. I’m available to you, too, through virtual coaching calls!  Simply email me at michelle@coachfromthecouch.com or reach out for a coaching call! I’m here to partner with you to build that foundation of student motivation for writing so your students can realize greater success.

Or, consider joining my Facebook community–a safe, supportive environment (really–no blaming or shaming is allowed!)  where you can ask questions, learn ideas, and share your thoughts among other literacy-loving educators!