Cited by 1,124Reading and Literacy DevelopmentLiteracy and Educational PracticesSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.

Kuhn, Melanie R., Stahl, Steven A.·2003·Journal of Educational Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

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