Technology, instructional methods, and the systemic messiness of innovation: improving reading fluency for low socio-economic elementary school students

  • Alissa A. LangeEmail author
Cultural and Regional Perspectives

Reading fluency—the ability to read accurately, with appropriate pacing, expression, and rhythm—is a fundamental skill for elementary school students to develop (Snow et al. 1998). Reading fluency is related to comprehension skills (Daane et al. 2005; Donahue et al. 1999; Pinnell et al. 1995) and to overall educational achievement (Silberglitt et al. 2006). However, many elementary school students do not reach grade-level reading fluency levels (Hemphill and Vanneman 2011; Pinnell et al. 1995), especially those from low-resource communities or from racial and ethnic minority groups (Donahue et al. 1999; Hemphill and Vanneman 2011). Research has suggested that children who do not develop the ability to read fluently early in the schooling process are likely to experience difficulty learning and comprehending important material from texts introduced in later grades (Chall et al. 1990; Lyon and Moats 1997; Rasinski et al. 2012). Interventions can be effective in improving reading fluency...


Reading fluency Elementary school Technology 



This work was commissioned by Texthelp Systems, Ltd, the developers of Fluency Tutor. The funders played a role in providing training to the teachers. Texthelp had no other role in carrying out the study, conducting analysis, or reporting efforts. Dr. Lange was an Assistant Research Professor at NIEER at Rutgers University while conducting this research. Thank you to all who contributed to its completion.


This study was funded by Texthelp Systems, Ltd, the developers of Fluency Tutor. The funders played a role in providing training to the teachers. Texthelp had no other role in carrying out the study, conducting analysis, or reporting efforts.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams, M. J. (2006). The promise of automatic speech recognition for fostering literacy growth in children and adults. In M. McKenna, L. Labbo, R. Kieffer, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T. (Eds.). (2000). Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beaver, J. M., & Carter, M. A. (2006). The developmental reading assessment-second edition (DRA2). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, H. S., Richburg-Hayes, L., & Black, A. R. (2007). Using covariates to improve precision for studies that randomize schools to evaluate educational interventions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 30–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., & Wichmann, A. (2002). Prosodic characteristics of skilled reading: Fluency and expressiveness in 8–10-year-old readers. Language and Speech, 45(1), 47–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (NCES 2006–469). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  8. Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States (NCES 1999–500). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  9. Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(9), 917–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hemphill, F. C., & Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Statistical Analysis Report (NCES 2011-459). National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  11. Hiebert, E. H. (2017). The texts of literacy instruction: Obstacles to or opportunities for educational equity? Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice. Scholar
  12. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequential rejective method procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
  13. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Keys, S. E. (2010). The effects of a computer-assisted reading program on the oral reading fluency, comprehension, and generalization of at-risk, urban second-grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Ohio. Retrieved June 20, 2016 from!etd.send_file?accession=osu1280881850&disposition=attachment
  15. Kim, J. S., Samson, J. F., Fitzgerald, R., & Hartry, A. (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4-6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 1109–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lange, A. A., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2009). Proofreading using the assistive software homophone tool: Compensatory and remedial effects on the literacy skills of secondary level students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 578–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 336–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitchell, C. C. (2013). Technology in their hands: Students’ voices from a Nook summer reading program for non-proficient fifth-grade students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  22. Mostow, J., Aist, G., Huang, C., Junker, B., Kennedy, R., Lan, H., et al. (2008). 4-month evaluation of a learner-controlled reading tutor that listens. In M. Holland & F. P. Fisher (Eds.), The Path of Speech Technologies in Computer Assisted Language Learning: From Research Toward Practice (pp. 201–219). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  23. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  24. New Jersey Department of Education. (2012). 2011 New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge [technical report]. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Education.Google Scholar
  25. New Jersey Department of Education. (2013). 2013 New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ ASK) Score Interpretation Manual, Grades 3–8. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Education.Google Scholar
  26. O’Conner, R. E., Bell, K. M., Harty, K. R., Larkin, L. K., Sackor, S. M., & Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 474–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palumbo, T. J., & Willcutt, J. R. (2006). Perspectives on fluency: English-language learners and students with dyslexia. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 159–178). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  28. Pearson. (2011). K–8 technical manual—developmental reading assessment (2nd ed.). Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  29. Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  30. Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46–51.Google Scholar
  31. Rasinski, T. V., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (Eds.). (2012). Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rathvon, N. (2004). Early reading assessment: A handbook for practitioners. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 3, pp. 15–38). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  35. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408.Google Scholar
  36. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E., Wisenbaker, J. M., Kuhn, M. R., Strauss, G. P., & Morris, R. D. (2006). Becoming a fluent and automatic reader in the early elementary school years. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 496–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silberglitt, B., Burns, M. K., Madyun, N. I. H., & Lail, K. E. (2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5), 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, M., Brady, J., & Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation tool, K-3 (ELLCO K-3) (Research ed.). Newton, MA: Brooks Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  40. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 407–419.Google Scholar
  42. StataCorp. (2013). Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  43. Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Texthelp Systems, Ltd. (2010). Fluency Tutor [software]. Woburn, MA: Texthelp Systems Ltd.Google Scholar
  45. Texthelp Systems, Ltd. (2011). Fluency tutor effective in improving fifth grade student reading scores. Woburn, MA: Texthelp Systems Ltd.Google Scholar
  46. Therrien, W. J. (2005). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.), Reading fluency: The forgotten dimension of reading success. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  49. Trainin, G., Hayden, H. E., Wilson, K., & Erickson, J. (2016). Examining the impact of quickreads technology and print formats on fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary development for elementary students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2014). What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0. Washinton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  51. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2013). Beginning reading intervention report: Fast ForWord ®. Washinton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  52. Valencia, S. W., & Riddle Buly, M. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, The, 27(3), 217.Google Scholar
  53. Wiederhold, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Tests-Version 5 (GORT-5). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  54. Williams, E. J. (1999). Developmental reading assessment: Reliability study 1999. Unpublished manuscript. Boulder, CO: Pearson.Google Scholar
  55. Yesil-Dagli, U. (2011). Predicting ELL students’ beginning first grade English oral reading fluency from initial kindergarten vocabulary, letter naming, and phonological awareness skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zheng, R., & Smarkola, C. (2003). Multimedia learning environments for early readers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(3), 45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Early Childhood Education, Clemmer CollegeEast Tennessee State UniversityJohnson CityUSA

Personalised recommendations