Aligning Theory and Assessment of Reading Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody, and Definitions of Fluency

Over the past decade, the field of literacy education has seen a major shift in fluency’s role in the literacy curriculum, moving from a rarely encountered instructional component to one that is often responsible for driving major instructional decisions (e.g., Riedel, 2007; Schilling, Carlisle, Scott, & Zeng, 2007). This shift is due, in part, to the identification of fluency as one of the areas reviewed by the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000). It also results from a broader reconsideration of the role of oral reading in the development of skilled reading (e.g., Rasinski, 2006; Reutzel, Fawson, & Smith, 2008). The recognition of the importance of fluency that has emerged as part of our developing understanding of the construct has led to a corresponding emphasis on fluency assessment and instruction within the literacy curriculum (e.g., Pikulski & Chard, 2005). Most literacy educators consider fluency to be a critical component of reading development (e.g., Rasinski, Blachowicz, & Lems, 2006; Samuels & Farstrup, 2006). However, the current implementation of f luency instruction in many classrooms is often driven by assessments that build upon an incomplete conceptualization of the construct and can lead to both inappropriate instruction and a serious misconception of this essential characteristic of skilled reading. Further, despite the significant amount of attention the construct of reading fluency has received recently, there are still a number of questions surrounding our understanding of what constitutes fluency, its role in the reading process, and how its assessment and instruction fit into the literacy Review of Research