Syntactically cued text facilitates oral reading fluency in developing readers

Abstract

Can fluency in oral reading be facilitated by formatting text to preserve major syntactic boundaries? Seven-, 8-, and 9-year-old children read aloud passages under two text format conditions. In the structure-preserving condition, the ends of lines coincided with ends of clauses; in the phrase-disrupting condition, line breaks always interrupted a phrasal unit. Experiment 1 showed that oral reading fluency, as indexed by skill in phrasal reading, was rated higher when children were reading in the structurepreserving condition. In addition, the structure-preserving condition resulted in significantly fewer false starts at the beginning of lines following a return sweep. The results of Experiment 2, in which texts of varying levels of difficulty were read by slightly older readers, confirmed both findings. Measures of fluency were correlated with other language and reading measures; however, no effects of format were obtained on oral reading rate (words correct per minute). Taken as a whole, these findings indicate a benefit of keeping clausal units intact in promoting fluent reading by facilitating the transition from one line to the next.

Promoting gains in reading fluency: a comparison of three approaches

“…We and others have maintained that in order to show fluency in reading, young readers must learn to mentally group words into phrases that reflect normal prosody (LeVasseur, 2004;LeVasseur et al, 2006;Schreiber, 1991). Our earlier work showed the benefits for fluency of cued text in which line lengths were adjusted to correspond with clause boundaries (LeVasseur et al, 2006).…”

“…Pretest and post-test means (and standard deviations) for each experimental measure in each condition are shown in Table 2. 2 The experimental measures were the same as those used in LeVasseur et al (2006). In that study, a reliability index was obtained for dysfluencies (false starts and other dysfluencies combined) and word errors.…”

“…In general, the effects of RR training on fluency have proved stronger than on comprehension (NRP, 2000). Finally, evidence is mixed regarding whether cued text benefits comprehension over standard text (for review, see LeVasseur et al, 2006). In the present study, we assessed comprehension using recall questions.…”

“…One form consisted of text in conventional (standard) layout whereas the second consisted of formatted text. The use of formatting was guided in part by results of our recent research (LeVasseur, Macaruso, Palumbo, & Shankweiler, 2006). In LeVasseur et al, we attempted to promote fluent reading by providing visible cues to prosody.…”

Recurrence Quantification Analysis of Processes and Products of Discourse: A Tutorial in R

“…In general, %DET of reading times seem to be an indicator of reading process fluency, correlating positively with reading speed and comprehension and negatively with the presence of reading problems. The results are surprising in that earlier studies that have tried to relate process and outcome measures of reading (i.e., comprehension) have often found null results, that is, no relation between measures of the reading process and subsequent comprehension tests (LeVasseur, Macaruso, & Shankweiler, 2008;LeVasseur, Macaruso, Palumbo, & Shankweiler, 2006;but see Schroeder, 2011), whereas RQA measures seem to be much more sensitive and reliable quantifiers of this part of the reading process.…”