Fluency Differences by Text Genre in Proficient and Struggling Secondary Students

Abstract

Reading fluency has been found to be an essential component of proficient reading and is a significant part of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010; NRP, 2000). Previous research has found that students may often differ in their ability to fluently read narrative and informational text. In this study we examine differences in fluent reading by text-genre in a sample of 108 ninth-grade readers. We also investigate these same differences based on whether a student is a proficient or struggling reader. Results for the total sample of readers show that oral reading fluency is more languid when students read informational texts. Additionally, large differences are found when readers are blocked as either proficient or struggling. Instructional implications are discussed.

A research on fluent reading skills of secondary school students

“…A similar result was revealed by Paige et al (2015) as well. Başaran (2013) determined, despite not being significant, a negative relationship between the number of misread words and speed in the study conducted with 4 th grade students.…”

“…The essay genre text named Dostluk was ranked as the second, while event story titled Semaver ranked as the last with 394.93 words in three minutes on average in terms of reading speed. On the other hand, in a study conducted by Paige et al (2015), it was determined that secondary school students read a narrative text with a speed of 324.30 words in three minutes while they read an informative text with a speed of 301.80 words. The difference between the findings of both studies may be considered from contents of text genres used.…”

“…In other words, accuracy is number of words obtained after taking away accuracy from total numbers of words read in three minutes. Although Paige et al (2015) measure fluent reading skill with three-minute reading period, remarkable number of studies have been conducted by one minute reading (Akyol et al 2014;Atkins, 2013;Başaran, 2013;Baştuğ & Keskin, 2012;Bilge, 2015;Hofstadter-Duke & Daly, 2011;Huang, Nelson & Nelson, 2008;Hunley, Davies & Miller, 2013;Kaya & Doğan, 2016;Rasinski, Padak, McKeon, Wilfong, Friedauer & Heim, 2005;Yıldız, Yıldırım, Ateş & Çetinkaya, 2009). …”

“…Torgesen and Hudson (2006) argue that the most understandable purpose of including prosody into fluency definitions is that a reader understands the text thanks to prosody. Paige et al (2015) researched in their study fluent reading speeds of different text genres by 108 ninth grade students. In this study, both good reader and poor readers are handled in terms of fluent reading skills.…”

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Okuma Becerileri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

“…Bu yüzden de akıcı okumanın temel boyutlarından prozodi üzerinde bu durumun olumlu etkisi olduğu değerlendirilebilir. Literatürde de bu araştırmaya paralel biçimde öyküleyici metnin daha akıcı okunduğunu bulan çalışmalar mevcuttur (Coşkun, 2002;Baştuğ, 2012;Barth, Tolar, Fletcher, Francis, 2014;Paige et al, 2015).…”