Two definitions of reading fluency

Reading fluency is first defined in the Reading Framework as the number of words read accurately per minute of time. This would depend on the choice of book, the level of challenge of text and whether the child had read it before and was reading from memory, thus reading performatively. It looks good on paper, but is it really fluency?

A second definition of reading fluency offered by the Reading Framework suggests it is less a mechanism built on automaticity, and more an adaptive social interaction with the author’s voice:

‘Fluency gives the reader the choice to read at a speed that allows for comprehension and can be adapted to the purpose of the reading.’ (Reading framework, p.60)

This lens may appear to be about speed of reading which can be dialled up or down as required, but really this perspective points to flexibility in reading. In other words, understanding the text has become more important than the stopwatch. Adapting and building flexibility into the reading show engagement on the part of the child that is beyond speed.

The first definition supports reading that is processed subconsciously, and this is what is intended by the push for ‘automaticity’. The second definition describes reading that is consciously processed with small refinements and nudges as required to sustain a stream of meaning. This is what happens when we interact socially, people check in with each other, interjecting to clarify, add or embellish the co-construction of meaning as the conversation flows forwards.

The Reading Framework implies that these two definitions of reading fluency intersect, and that the second is a consequence of the first. Although I agree that both definitions of fluency apply, I argue that the way they intersect is likely to vary for different groups of pupils.

The majority of pupils are those who can build automaticity straight away. Following the early stages, fluency and reading accuracy build with increasing exposure to books and texts within a school culture that promotes reading for enjoyment. As the Reading Framework says,

‘Once readers can decode accurately and speedily, reading a lot is the principal way they develop as readers.’ (Reading Framework, p.18)

It’s appropriate to present this as a virtuous spiral.

‘As pupils gain fluency, their motivation increases: they start to enjoy reading more and are willing to do more of it.’ (Reading Framework, p.60).

One in four children

And yet, the problem is that according to recent data, about one-in-four children are leaving primary school unable to read well. In other words they are not fluent and do not enjoy reading. I was one of those children for many years in primary school. I did not read with fluency and understanding until I turned eleven. I had read every day at home, and enjoyed borrowing beautifully illustrated books from the local library. I read individual words well, and could struggle through a passage adequately, but beyond the performative aspect which required intense focus, reading was a meaningless exercise.

Fifty years later, schools are in a similar predicament. Classrooms may feel somewhat polarised as teachers are expected to teach proficient readers and those having ‘very low proficiency in reading.’ (Reading framework p.5). One-in-four children leave primary school reading below the expected level, which of course dilutes their access to the secondary curriculum. Is it because of deficits? Is it because of SEND? Is it because of anxiety around attending school? Not necessarily. Here’s why.

The Reading Framework leans into the assumption that automaticity precedes fluency and understanding. Drawing on my professional experience working in Academic Support in three independent schools, delivering Rhythm for Reading in mainstream and special schools and of course, my own experience as someone identified with dyslexia, there is another route to fluency that is more relevant to the lower-attaining readers. If we consider

Consider fluency as automaticity in grapheme-phoneme correspondence (GPC) as the micro level, and fluency as adapting pace and flow at the level of comprehension as the macro level, then we can make space in between for prosody and phrase shapes at the meso level.

The reading framework focuses almost exclusively on the two step process: automaticity then fluency, so that the stepping stone in between, the meso level seems somewhat superfluous, even though it is, in my opinion very important.

An example of the limitations of this thinking is clearly set out. The Standards and Testing Agency considers around 90 words per minute to be a good indicator of when pupils ‘start to read with sufficient fluency to focus on their understanding.’ (P.69)

Indeed this is true for children with good automaticity. Other children are able to read an easy text at speeds exceeding 90 wpm, but they do so performatively, without understanding and must reference the text afterwards to answer comprehension questions. We need to be aware that reading at 90 words per minute isn’t sufficient on its own, and if we want to help more children to read well, we must now think about how to measure fluency so that the meso level is more prominent.

The step in between: Prosody and phrase shapes

The step in between is the musical part of reading fluency. It involves rhythm, intonation, shape and expression, described by researchers as ‘prosody’. This is the experiential, embodied element of reading fluency, the part that would be most helpful in a multi-sensory approach.

In spoken language, the tone of voice, the rise and fall of the arc of a phrase and the use of stress and emphasis help us to understand with empathy and to better anticipate the next step in the conversation. And yet, the Reading Framework refers to prosody as an outcome of fluency rather than supporting the making and shaping of meaningful phrases.

‘A reader is unlikely to show a good grasp of prosody if they cannot already read the words with appropriate pace.’ (The Reading Framework, p.60)

I have heard many lower-attaining readers navigate fluency with success because the intonation contour supplied by prosody became a source of guidance for them. One child recommended putting in as much expression as you possibly can to get your imagination to run a movie in your mind.

What the music studio comparison assumes

It’s interesting that the Reading Framework compares reading fluency with musical fluency. This is a misstep, because according to music educationalists, the smallest unit of music is a phrase (also known as a gesture) (Swanwick, 1999). Keith Swanwick’s three simple working principles ensure that music is taught musically. His first principle is ‘Care for music as discourse’. Rather than teach beat-by-beat, Swanwick reminds us: ‘the smallest musical unit is the phrase or gesture, not an interval, beat or measure.’ (Swanwick, 1999, p.44).

When the Reading Framework takes us to a music studio (p.61), we are told,

‘Once the child can play the piece automatically, the teacher draws attention to the expression marks and the phrasing. Together they decide how the piece will be performed. At each grade the complexity of the music increases, but the actual process of becoming fluent remains the same.’

Firstly, most piano pupils take lessons as individuals. This arrangement is quite different to the teaching of reading which is usually a group lesson. Piano teachers are able to adapt their teaching to suit the student, so as to encourage as much musical enjoyment as possible. Some teachers do indeed teach note-by-note and pupils can be held back by such an approach because they do not develop fluency at the phrase level. Music, just like prosody in language is communicated through patterns and phrases, with rhythm guiding timing and meaning in both instances.

In terms of structural constraints, a phrase in music is answered by another phrase, (known as arsis and thesis), and in a sentence we have the subject and predicate. In this respect there is a similarity in terms of what we might expect from the shape and structure of music and language.

‘The teacher helps pupils to gain reading fluency at each stage in the same way that a piano teacher helps a pupil to gain musical fluency at each grade.’ (The Reading Framework, p.61)

Effective piano teachers use rhythmic patterns to build fluency into the phrase shapes of the music in every lesson. When the piece comes together, the shaping and flow of the phrases are already a strong anchor for fluent playing - whether in the earliest or advanced grades. In fact one of the advantages of teaching with fluency built in at the start is that during a performance, the player is in possession of sufficient freedom to slightly flex the shapes of phrases for the purposes of expression and salience.

Keith Swaniwck's second principle, Care for the musical discourse of students, asks us to sustain their spontaneous learning, to cultivate their curiosity, their competence and their desire to emulate others. This second principle speaks to social interaction, and students’ capacity for bringing musical ideas to the lesson, because music, like language is social.

The third principle is ‘Fluency first and last’ (Swanwick, 1999, p.56).

When this book was published, teaching note-by-note-, beat-by-beat was commonplace and led to a note-getting style of playing as the pupil tried to keep their place on the page and manage the instrument at the same time. But, if we return to principle one, and teach rhythm and patterns at the smallest musical unit - the phrase, then fluency is already baked into the basic unit, right from the start.

What to listen for when a child reads aloud

Fluency requires a layering and coordination in real time of many skills. This is true of learning to swim, riding a bike, playing piano and learning to read. What is coming up next on the page, on the cycle path or in the swimming pool determines whether we maintain our pace or slow down. Achieving that momentum in the first place (as a beginner) is a matter of coordination, timing and social interaction.

If we look once again at the meso layer, we can appreciate the importance of phrase shapes for building fluency, whether we are teaching with musical notation or printed language. Rhythmic awareness and phonemic awareness are processed together as part of listening, and this happens within phrases and sentences.

In a classroom, if teachers put away their stopwatch and begin to listen to the child’s voice at the phrase and sentence level, they will soon hear whether the child is performing or experiencing meaning as they read. One approach would be to listen for whether the reader misses the full stop and to notice whether their eyes drift. If they are stable as they move across the line of text and poised enough to realise the full stops, listen for the stress pattern of the language and whether they are missing out suffixes. Finally, notice whether they are anticipating what comes up next in the passage or whether they are simply taking things one word at a time.

If you are curious to discover more and try a free fluency tracker, click here.

REFERENCES

Department for Education (2023) The Reading Framework, London, Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-reading-framework-teaching-the-foundations-of-literacy

Swanwick, K. (1999) Teaching Music Musically, London and New York, Routledge