Read Live used by an older student

Many elementary classrooms incorporate fluency work into their ELA block—and those that don’t probably should. With few exceptions, all students learning to read will benefit from fluency instruction, and fluency directly correlates with comprehension. The research on this is clear (National Reading Panel, 2000).

When it comes to older students who are reading below grade level or struggling with comprehension, educators have less guidance. Is it still valuable to work on fluency with these students, when their peers have moved on? Literacy expert Tim Shanahan argues that fluency work is still important. We agree, and so does the research.

In his post about this topic, Shanahan states: “Even by 8th grade, fluency continues to explain 25% of the variance in reading comprehension. That means if we could get all students to read fluently, the differences in comprehension would be reduced by 25%—which is substantial (Tosto, et al., 2017).”

Shanahan’s advice is to listen to older (middle and high-school) students read grade-level texts. If they can read those with accuracy, speed, and prosody, then fluency work is unnecessary at this age. If they can’t, it’s time to focus on fluency. Modeling and practice are the most effective ways to build fluency. A simple activity is to read a paragraph to a student and have the student read it back to you (modeling). Repeat until the student reads the paragraph fluently (practice). Be sure that the texts you’re using are challenging enough, or students won’t improve much.

Modeling and practice are the pillars of the Read Naturally Strategy, which became the pioneer in fluency development nearly 35 years ago. Watch our founder, Candyce Ihnot and reading researcher Dr. Jan Hasbrouck discuss the importance of fluency in this short video.

Because the need to build fluency often continues after the elementary years, Read Naturally offers high-interest, nonfiction content through an eighth-grade reading level. Our higher levels are challenging, interesting, and sophisticated enough even for adults (and many adults have used our programs to become fluent readers). Here’s a sample of one of our eighth-grade level passages.

Middle and high-school educators frequently tell us how difficult it is to find fluency programs for older students that aren’t babyish. Struggling readers at this age will only improve if their confidence is boosted, not deflated—and nothing will deflate their confidence more quickly than a program clearly designed for little kids. We’re proud to provide the solution that works well for students of all ages. Students see results immediately, work mostly independently at their skill level, and build fluency quickly due to increased confidence and a research-proven system with a long and impressive track record of success.

If your older students need a boost, check us out. We offer a free no-obligation trial for 60 days. Sign up online, or grab an appointment with our Solutions Manager for a demo or a conversation about your specific needs.

 

References

National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read : an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Shanahan, T. (2024, October 26). Do middle and high school students need fluency instruction and what counts as instruction? Shanahan on Literacy. https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/do-middle-and-high-school-students-need-fluency-instruction-and-what-counts-as-instruction

Tosto, M. G., Hayiou-Thomas, M., Harlaar, N., Prom-Wormley, E., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2017). The genetic architecture of oral language, reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A twin study from 7 to 16 years. Developmental Psychology, 53(6), 1115-1129. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-22471-001.html