The authors review theory and research relating to fluency instruction and development. They surveyed the range of definitions for fluency, primary features of fluent reading, and studies that have attempted to improve the fluency of struggling readers. They found that (a) fluency instruction is generally effective, although it is unclear whether this is because of specific instructional features or because it involves children in reading increased amounts of text; (b) assisted approaches seem to be more effective than unassisted approaches; (c) repetitive approaches do not seem to hold a clear advantage over nonrepetitive approaches; and (d) effective fluency instruction moves beyond automatic word recognition to include rhythm and expression, or what linguists refer to as the prosodic features of language.

This paper reports a meta-analysis of studies concerned with the effects of vocabulary instruction on the learning of word meanings and on comprehension. This analysis was used to examine two questions: Does vocabulary instruction have a significant effect on children’s comprehension of text? What types of vocabulary instruction are most effective? In response to the first question, a mean effect size of .97 could be attributed to vocabulary instruction for comprehension of passages containing taught words and of .30 for global measures of comprehension, both of which are significantly different from zero. For the second question, it was suggested that the most effective vocabulary teaching methods included both definitional and contextual information in their programs, involved the students in deeper processing, and gave the students more than one or two exposures to the to-be-learned words. In addition, the mnemonic keyword method was found to have reliable effects on recall of definitions and sentence comprehension.

A quantitative meta-analysis evaluating the effects of systematic phonics instruction compared to unsystematic or no-phonics instruction on learning to read was conducted using 66 treatment-control comparisons derived from 38 experiments. The overall effect of phonics instruction on reading was moderate, d = 0.41. Effects persisted after instruction ended. Effects were larger when phonics instruction began early (d = 0.55) than after first grade (d = 0.27). Phonics benefited decoding, word reading, text comprehension, and spelling in many readers. Phonics helped low and middle SES readers, younger students at risk for reading disability (RD), and older students with RD, but it did not help low achieving readers that included students with cognitive limitations. Synthetic phonics and larger-unit systematic phonics programs produced a similar advantage in reading. Delivering instruction to small groups and classes was not less effective than tutoring. Systematic phonics instruction helped children learn to read better than all forms of control group instruction, including whole language. In sum, systematic phonics instruction proved effective and should be implemented as part of literacy programs to teach beginning reading as well as to prevent and remediate reading difficulties.

Phonological awareness (PA) has been operationally defined by many different tasks, and task comparisons have been confounded by differing levels of linguistic complexity among items. A sample of 113 kindergartners and first graders completed PA tasks designed to separate task difficulty from linguistic complexity. These measures were, in turn, compared with measures of early literacy. Results indicated that the measures loaded on a single factor and that PA measured by differences in linguistic complexity, rather than by task differences, seemed to be more closely related to that factor. A logical analysis suggested that alphabet knowledge is necessary for children to separate onsets from rimes and that awareness of onsets and rimes is necessary both for word reading and for more complex levels of phonemic analysis.

Prosodic reading, or reading with expression, is considered one of the hallmarks of fluent reading. The major purpose of the study was to learn how reading prosody is related to decoding and reading comprehension skills. Suprasegmental features of oral reading were measured in 2nd-and 3rd-grade children (N = 123) and 24 adults. Reading comprehension and word decoding skills were assessed. Children with faster decoding speed made shorter and less variable intersentential pauses, shorter intrasentential pauses, larger sentence-final fundamental frequency (F 0 ) declinations, and better matched the adult prosodic F 0 profile. Two structural equation models found evidence of a relationship between decoding speed and reading prosody as well as decoding speed and comprehension. There was only minimal evidence that prosodic reading was an important mediator of reading comprehension skill.Prosodic reading, or reading with expression, is widely considered to be one of the hallmarks of the achievement of reading fluency. When a child is reading prosodically, oral reading sounds much like speech with appropriate phrasing, pause structures, stress, rise and fall patterns, and general expressiveness. However, exactly where does the development of prosodic reading or "making it sound like language" (Stahl & Kuhn, 2002, p. 582) fit in our conceptions of developing reading skill? The purpose of the current study was to determine how individual differences in developing reading skill are related to prosodic reading in order to better place prosodic reading in the process of learning to read fluently. Gough and Tumner's (1986) "simple view of reading" proposed that reading comprehension could be described in terms of two factors-language comprehension and word decoding. In this model, both language comprehension and decoding are seen as limiting factors in reading comprehension. If the child's decoding is less than fully automatic, his or her comprehension will suffer. As decoding moves toward full automaticity, reading comprehension skill should equal comprehension of oral language (Carver, 1993(Carver, , 2000Hoover & Gough, 1990). OthersCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paula J. Schwanenflugel, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, 323E Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: pschwane@coe.uga.edu. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript (e.g., Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; National Reading Panel, 2000) suggested that more than automaticity of individual word decoding is necessary for comprehension to be enhanced. Instead, they suggested that fluency, defined as not only accuracy and automaticity of individual word reading, but also prosodic rendering of the text, is needed for children to adequately comprehend. What Is Reading Prosody?Despite its presumed status as the hallmark of fluent reading, we currently know little about the nature of reading prosody per se. To read prosodically, children must be able to do more than de...