Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Abstract
The authors review theory and research relating to fluency instruction and development. They surveyed the range of definitions for fluency, primary features of fluent reading, and studies that have attempted to improve the fluency of struggling readers. They found that (a) fluency instruction is generally effective, although it is unclear whether this is because of specific instructional features or because it involves children in reading increased amounts of text; (b) assisted approaches seem to be more effective than unassisted approaches; (c) repetitive approaches do not seem to hold a clear advantage over nonrepetitive approaches; and (d) effective fluency instruction moves beyond automatic word recognition to include rhythm and expression, or what linguists refer to as the prosodic features of language. The process of becoming literate can be conceptualized as a series of qualitatively different stages through which learners progress as they become increasingly proficient with print (Chall, 1996b; Harris & Sipay, 1990). One of the primary advances in this process involves the shift from dealing with words on a word-by-word basis to a rapid, accurate, and expressive rendering of text. In other words, learners develop such familiarity with print that they
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Assisted fluency activities seem to work better than unassisted activities.
“and that assisted fluency acti v ities seem to work better than unassisted acti v ities (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).”
From The Four Strands (2007) · cites this paper as Kuhn & Stahl, 2003
For first language learners, there is no advantage for one type of fluency practice over the other.
“For first language learners, Kuhn and Stahl (2003) found no ad v antage for one type of fluency practice o v er the other.”
From The Four Strands (2007) · cites this paper as Kuhn and Stahl (2003)
Fluency practice increases fluency in first language readers.
“Studies of fluency de v elopment in first language readers ha v e found that fluency practice increases fluency”
From The Four Strands (2007) · cites this paper as Kuhn & Stahl, 2003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do
OECD (2019) · PISA · doi:10.1787/5f07c754-en · Cited by 2,350 · see citing works
Nation, P. (2007) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.2167/illt039.0 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
“For first language learners, Kuhn and Stahl (2003) found no advantage for one type of fluency practice over the other.”
BackgroundThe Education of Dyslexic Children from Childhood to Young Adulthood
Shaywitz, S. E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093633 · Cited by 383 · see citing works
21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World
OECD (2021) · PISA · doi:10.1787/a83d84cb-en · Cited by 337 · see citing works
KIEFFER, M. J., BIANCAROSA, G., & MANCILLA-MARTINEZ, J. (2013) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716411000920 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Computing Education Research Today
Fincher, S. A., Tenenberg, J., Dorn, B., Hundhausen, C., McCartney, R., & Murphy, L. (2019) · The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.003 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-21
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- OpenAlex
- W2074485106
- Cited by
- 1,124
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 60
- FWCI
- 55.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- reading fluency, fluency instruction, struggling readers, remedial reading, automaticity, prosody, word recognition, reading development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review