NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Student: Daniel Alan Coffin

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN

Follow these procedures: If requested by your instructor, please include an assignment cover
sheet. This will become the first page of your assignment. In addition, your assignment header
should include your last name, first initial, course code, dash, and assignment number. This
should be left justified, with the page number right justified. For example:

DoeJXXX0000-1 1

Save a copy of your assignments: You may need to re-submit an assignment at your instructors
request. Make sure you save your files in accessible location.

Academic integrity: All work submitted in each course must be your own original work. This
includes all assignments, exams, term papers, and other projects required by your instructor.
Knowingly submitting another persons work as your own, without properly citing the source of
the work, is considered plagiarism. This will result in an unsatisfactory grade for the work
submitted or for the entire course. It may also result in academic dismissal from the University.

EDU8200 Dr. Kelsey

Scholarly Literature Review Develop a Literature Review Outline

<Add student comments here>

Faculty Use Only

<Faculty comments here>

<Faculty Name> <Grade Earned> <Date Graded>

Develop a Literature Review Outline

Daniel Coffin

Northcentral University
CoffinDEDU8200-5 2
CoffinDEDU8200-5 3

Develop a Literature Review Outline

The purpose of this assignment is to prepare an annotated introduction for a research paper,

organizing my thesis related to my research topic of interest, supporting subtopics, and paraphrased

information taken from my research sources which I intend to use to support my thesis. This

research paper investigates the topic of fluency development as it relates to overall reading

achievement in middle school struggling readers of low socioeconomic status and advances the

thesis that fluency development instruction is an important precursor for reading comprehension

and that the current prevailing paradigm of middle grades reading instruction that deemphasizes

fluency development in favor of reading comprehension instruction does a disservice to struggling

middle school readers of low socioeconomic status whose literacy development is more likely to

have been delayed by poor pre-literacy and literacy experiences in the home, reduced exposure to

print, and increased chance of attending substandard schools. These struggling readers failure to

read fluently negatively affects not only their reading performance, but academic achievement in all

other subjects which rely heavily upon proficient reading.

Annotated Outline for Fluency Development and Low-SES Struggling Readers in the Middle

Grades

I. Introduction: The Effect of Low Socioeconomic Status (SES) on Oral Reading Fluency and

Overall Reading Achievement

A. Oral reading fluency refers to the ability of a reader to make sense of text correctly,

quickly and with minimal effort, and with appropriate tone and phrasing; these aspects

of fluency are called accuracy, automaticity, and prosody (Paige & Magpuri-Lavell,

2014).
B. Extensive research has shown that oral reading disfluency is correlated with diminished

vocabulary and poor reading comprehension (Hilsmier, Wehby, & Falk, 2016).
C. The middle grades language arts curriculum generally emphasizes instruction in

vocabulary and comprehension and de-emphasizes phonics or fluency instruction,

CoffinDEDU8200-5 4

reasoning that these skills have already been obtained in the elementary grades (Leko,

2015).
D. Students of low socio-economic status and English language learners (ELL) are at

particular risk for being disfluent readers due to vocabulary deficits, lack of exposure to

print, and diminished intrinsic motivation to read (Parker, Zaslofsky, Burns, Kanive,

Hodgson, Scholin, & Klingbeil, 2015).

E. Research indicates parents of higher socioeconomic status engage in greater amounts of

child-directed speech than those of lower socioeconomic status and use speech to elicit

conversation with child rather than to direct behavior (Hoff, 2003).

F. Oral reading fluency serves as a mediator between pre-literacy skills and reading

comprehension, influencing reading comprehension both directly and indirectly (Li &

Wu, 2015; Kim & Wagner, 2015).

G. The majority of students who demonstrate deficiencies in reading performance in the

elementary grades still show the same deficiencies in high school; difficulties in

reading/language arts performance develop into overall diminished academic

performance as learning requires proficient reading (c.f. learn to read vs. read to

learn paradigm); it is, therefore, imperative that teachers of reading in the middle

grades develop effective means of diagnosing and intervening to solve problems with

oral reading fluency (Meisinger, Bloom, & Hynd, 2008; Hilsmier, Wehby, & Falk,

2016).
II. Accuracy
A. Accuracy is an aspect of fluency which refers to the ability of a reader to decode text

without error. Accuracy in phonetic decoding at a rate of less than 90% is considered to

be frustration level and may result in an inability of a reader to make sense of the text

to be read (Parker, Zaslofsky, Burns, Kanive, Hodgson, Scholin, & Klingbeil, 2015).
B. Accuracy depends on a strong basis in phonic awareness (discerning sounds within

spoken words) and phonics (discerning the relationship between sounds and sound

patterns and text) (Vaessen & Blomert, 2010).

CoffinDEDU8200-5 5

C. Increasing accuracy in decoding is a matter of providing students with opportunities to

learn and practice with phonetic patterns in both drill and authentic reading (Kim,

Bryant, Bryant, & Park, 2017).

III. Automaticity
A. Automaticity is an aspect of fluency which refers to the ability of a reader to access a

whole word or word part from their memory in order to read without pausing to struggle

with decoding (Paige & Magpuri-Lavell, 2014).

B. Through repeated exposure to text, readers build up an internal inventory of words of

increasing orthographical complexity; this inventory of sight words (words that do not

need to be decoded phoneme by phoneme, but are recognized as a whole) enable readers

to read more quickly without sacrificing accuracy (Vaessen & Blomert, 2010).
C. Automatized decoding reduces cognitive load in the reader, freeing working memory to

attend to relationships between words in a sentence rather than within the word itself,

enabling meaning-making (Mikk, 2008).

IV. Prosody
A. The final facet of fluency is prosody, the ability of a reader to read aloud with

meaningful phrasing and intonation (Paige & Magpuri-Lavell, 2014).

B. Reading that is not prosodic is monotone or choppy, which makes text hard to follow

and understand; reading text aloud in a way that approximates natural speech,

conversely, aids in comprehension (Rasinski, Rupley, & Nichols, 2008).

C. There is a performance feedback loop between oral reading fluency and comprehension;

increased fluency leads to improved comprehension, which in turn informs the manner

in which a reader performs the oral reading of a text (Rasinski, Rupley, & Nichols,

2008).
V. Assessment of Fluency and Fluency Development Interventions
A. Accuracy and automaticity of text are generally assessed by means of words correct per

minute (WCPM); curriculum-based measurement (CBM) data collection can be used to

measure the effect of fluency development interventions on reader accuracy and speed

(Ardoin, Christ, Morena, Cormier, & Klingbeil, 2011).

CoffinDEDU8200-5 6

B. Prosody of reading can be measured using a multidimensional rubric like Rasinskis

which assesses pacing, tone, volume, and phrasing; these scores can also be gathered and

analyzed using CBM (cited in Meisinger, Bloom, & Hynd, 2008).

C. Repeated reading is a time-tested and evidence-based intervention useful for developing

fluency; fluency gains have been shown to transfer from a single text to overall reading

performance (Paige & Magpuri-Lavell, 2014).

D. Readers theatre develops all three dimensions of fluency within a meaningful and high-

interest context, inviting readers to develop prosody especially by placing themselves in

the emotional space of characters (Young & Nageldinger, 2014).

E. Poetry recitation intervention provides struggling readers with a safe place to practice

short texts which emphasize communication of meaning rather than grammatical

structure (Wilfong, 2015).

F. Research indicates that silent reading and oral reading are two different types of

experiences and that silent reading does not contribute to reading comprehension,

meaning that SSR (sustained silent reading), which is a common instructional technique

is not effective for disfluent oral readers (Price, Meisinger, Louwerse, & DMello,

2015).
VI. Conclusion: Gaps in the Research
A. To what degree are various pre-literacy deficiencies ameliorated by intensive in-school

interventions, and which interventions are most effective at addressing which

deficiencies?
B. At what point do developing readers benefit less from phonics decoding interventions to

develop fluency and more from prosody development? Can words correct per minute

(WCPM) be used as a cut-off point to determine when this change would be most

effective?
C. Are fluency development interventions effective at improving not only WCPM and

fluency rubric outcomes, but also intrinsic reading motivation? If not, what additional

techniques might be employed to improve reading motivation?

CoffinDEDU8200-5 7

D. What is the long-term benefit that accrues to readers who have participated in fluency

development interventions (1, 3, 5, years, etc.) Will struggling readers continue to

require more intensive reading instruction, or can students eventually graduate to

regular classes?

References

Archer, A.L., Gleason, M.M., & Vachon, V.L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for
struggling readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 89-101.

Ardoin, S.P., Christ, T., Morena, L.S., Cormier, D.C., & Klingbeil, D.A. (2013). A systematic
review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based
measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology,
51(1), 1-18.

Cho, K.W., Altarriba, J., & Popiel, M. (2015). Mental juggling: When does multitasking impair
reading comprehension? The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 90-105.
CoffinDEDU8200-5 8

Hilsmier, A.S., Wehby, J.H., Falk, K.B. (2016). Reading fluency interventions for middle school
students with academic and behavioral disabilities. Reading Improvement, 53(2), 53-64.

Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early
vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368-1378.

Kim, Y.G., & Wagner, R.K. (2015). Text (oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading
development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from grades 1 to 4. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 19(3), 224-242.

Kim, M.K., Bryant, D.P., Bryant, B.R., & Park, Y. (2017). A synthesis of interventions for
improving oral reading fluency of elementary students with learning disabilities. Preventing
School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61(2), 116-125.

Leko, M. M. (2015). To adapt or not to adapt: Navigating an implementation conundrum. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 48(2), 80-85.

Meisinger, E.B., Bloom, J.S., & Hynd, G.W. (2008). Reading fluency: implication for the
assessment of children with reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 1-17.

Mikk, J. (2008). Sentence length for revealing the cognitive load reversal effect in text
comprehension. Educational Studies, 34(2), 119-127.

Paige, D.D., & Magpuri-Lavell, T. (2014). Reading fluency in the middle and secondary grades.
International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 83-96.

Parker, D.C., Zaslofsky, A.F., Burns, M.K., Kanive, R., Hodgson, J., Scholin, S.E., & Klingbeil, D.
A. (2015). A brief report on the diagnostic accuracy of oral reading fluency and reading
inventory levels for reading failure risk among second- and third-grade students. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 31(1), 55-67.

Price, K.W., Meisinger, E.B., Louwerse, M.M, & DMello, S. (2016). The contributions of oral and
silent reading fluency to reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 37(2), 167-201.

Rasinski, T., Rupley, W.H., & Nichols, W.D. (2008). Synergistic phonics and fluency instruction:
The magic of rhyming poetry! New England Reading Association Journal, 44(1), 9-14.

Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2017). Working memory training in typically developing children: A meta-
analysis of the available evidence. Developmental Psychology, 53(4), 671-685.

Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading development.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 213-231.

Wilfong, L.G. (2015). Using poetry to improve fluency, comprehension, word recognition, and
attitude toward reading in struggling English language learners. New England Reading
Association Journal, 51 (1), 41-49.
CoffinDEDU8200-5 9

Young, C., & Nageldinger, J. (2014). Considering the context and texts for fluency: Performance,
readers theater, and poetry. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(1), 47-
56.