Decoding Play Role in Developing Reading Comprehension

Developing Reading Automaticity and Fluency: Revisiting What Reading Teachers Know, Putting Confirmed Enquiry into Current Practice ()

Abstruse

This commodity revisits research on reading automaticity and fluency with the goal of helping beginning reading teachers put confirmed inquiry findings into current classroom practise. The article examines the concepts of automaticity and fluency, how both impact the development of skillful reading. The commodity reviews inquiry on: a) reading strategies children use, and b) repeat reading teaching strategies to develop fluency. Case scenarios illustrate key findings. Based on the inquiry and case scenarios, four conclusions are drawn: 1) The terms automaticity and fluency are often interchanged; the concepts are not the same; 2) Understanding the differences between automaticity and fluency can impact repeat reading teaching strategies; 3) At that place is an assumption that rapid word recognition is the same cognitive process as automated discussion decoding ; and four) At that place are 2 pathways to fluent reading, rapid discussion recognition, and automatic decoding ability. The article presents a theoretical model which aligns with childhood learning theories, offer teachers a variation in repeat reading teaching strategies. Rather than echo ing reading the same text, opportunities to read slightly different, decodable text improves decoding, builds fluency, and thus strengthens children'southward reading comprehension of circuitous text.

Share and Cite:

Wolf, Grand. (2018) Developing Reading Automaticity and Fluency: Revisiting What Reading Teachers Know, Putting Confirmed Research into Current Practice. Creative Education, 9, 838-855. doi: ten.4236/ce.2018.96062.

1. Introduction

The purposes of this article are to: a) review the seminal literature to define reading automaticity and reading fluency, noting the differences between the concepts; b) explore repeat reading theories and repeat reading instruction practices to assistance children develop reading fluency; c) contrast and compare the terms of rapid give-and-take recognition and automatic word decoding; and d) show how teachers of kickoff reading tin can put accepted past inquiry findings into current classroom practice. Literature and case scenarios show repeat reading practices may be useful for helping children develop rapid word recognition and fluent reading; some repeat reading methods fail to adequately assist children develop needed automated give-and-take decoding skills. The article offers a theoretical model of how the reading materials presented to children play a critical function in the children'south development of decoding automaticity, reading fluency, and comprehension of complex text. The last section explores how childhood teaching and learning theories back up the theoretical model; both the model and childhood learning theories should be a part of reading teacher education.

2. Defining Terms and Clarifying Assumptions

This article is written within the context of the showtime reader, and beginning reading education. For the purposes of this article the start reader ways young children experiencing the beginning, formal reading lessons. The kickoff reader refers to children ages four through seven.

2.1. Defining Reading

Reading is defined as the power to look at print, respond with the proper sound translation and comprehend the meaning of the print (Kostewicz & Kibina, 2010; National Plant of Child Wellness and Human being Development, 2000) . Reading is a complex skill of constructing meaning from written text; the reader must be able to decode words quickly and accurately so the heed is free to comprehend the text (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010) . This essential, rapid decoding skill proficient readers take is called automaticity (Adams, 1990; Kuhn et al., 2010; La Berge & Samuels, 1974; Logan, 1997) .

2.2. Defining Decoding

Decoding is defined as the power to wait at print and respond with the proper audio translation; decoding is a impress-to-sound process (Adams, 1990; De Graaff, Bosman, Hasselman, & Verhoeven, 2009) . Decoding refers to the ability to nourish to alphabetic character audio translations, and spelling patterns to decipher a discussion. This definition of decoding follows research from Castles & Nation (2008) , Ehri (2005) , Hoien-Tengesdal and Tonnessen (2011) , and Veenendaal, Groen, and Verhoeven (2015) who describe decoding equally the ability to connect letters and spelling-patterns to the proper sound translation.

2.3. Defining Decodable Text

For the purposes of this article, the term decodable text refers to unproblematic, regular spelling patterns with curt vowel sounds. Examples of decodable text are the consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) pattern, /a/, /o/, /i/, /u/, and, /e/ words: lid, mop, wig, fun, and men; about 250 words, only one spelling blueprint (Appendix). Examples of other decodable text are the CVCC pattern: pass, doll, puff, kiss, bell, …camp, damp, lamp…belt, felt, melt… The CCVC pattern: skid, peel, skip, stop, footstep, snip, spin, spot, swam swim… The CCVCC pattern: black, scissure, speck, brick, click, stick, pull a fast one on, block, clock, stuck, truck... This definition of decodable text aligns with research from Adams (1990) , Denton and Otaiba (2011) , and Greaney and Arrow (2012) .

2.4. Defining Automaticity

Automaticity is divers every bit the ability of a reader to decode print instantly without conscious thought or effort (Kuhn et al., 2010; La Berge & Samuels, 1974; Logan, 1997) . Automaticity is linked to reading comprehension; when a reader does not accept to consciously recollect nearly decoding, the reader's heed is free to comprehend text (Adams, 1990; Kostewicz & Kibina, 2010; Kuhn et al., 2010; National Establish of Child Wellness and Man Development, 2000) . I root cause of poor reading comprehension is lack of automatic decoding skill (Adams, 1990; Kuhn et al., 2010; La Berge & Samuels, 1974; Logan, 1997) . A main goal of reading instruction is to help children acquire automatic decoding ability (Deeney, 2010; De Graaff et al., 2009) .

2.five. Defining Fluency

Fluency is defined as fast, accurate oral reading with proper expression (Kuhn et al., 2010; National Constitute of Child Health and Human Evolution, 2000; Rasinski, 2012; Schwanenflugel et al., 2006) . Kickoff reading teachers check for reading automaticity by monitoring reading fluency, often focusing on speed of words read correctly per minute (wcpm) (Deeney, 2010; Guerin & Murphy, 2015; Rasinski, 2012) . Developing reading fluency is a national Common Cadre Standard of teaching practice (Common Core Country Standards Initiative, CCSSI, 2015; Mutual Core State Standards, CCSS, 2015) .

As with reading automaticity, reading fluency is tied to reading comprehension (Guerin & Murphy, 2015) . Studies likewise show a connexion between proper oral expressive reading (prosody) and improved reading comprehension (Keyes, Cartledge, Gibson, Lenwood, & Robinson-Ervin, 2016; Paige, Rasinski, & Magpuri-Lavell, 2012; Veenendaal et al., 2015) .

2.6. The Merging of Two Concepts, Automaticity and Fluency

The concept of developing reading fluency began to merge with the concept of reading automaticity (National Institute of Kid Wellness and Human Development, 2000: p. 3-vii) . At times, the terms reading fluency and reading automaticity have merged in the literature; Rasinski (2012: p. 518) writes, "Because fluency (automaticity) has come to be measured by a reader's speed of reading…"

Researchers hold, gaining automatic decoding skills helps lead to fluent oral reading (Adams, 1990; Kuhn et al., 2010; Samuels, 1979) . The rub is, should the offset reading instructor strive for oral reading fluency during beginning reading attempts. The following scenario shows instead, the teacher focusing on independent, accurate reading, with comprehension.

2.7. Case Scenario

Nelly is a four-year-old who would not talk. Teachers are still able to teach Nelly to read. First, Nelly would listen to a teacher verbalize a single letter-sound, Nelly would point to the corresponding, lower case letter. Because Nelly would not talk, the option of the teacher pointing to a alphabetic character and Nelly responding verbally with the basic sound translation was omitted. Instead, later Nelly could successfully indicate to ix letters the teacher verbally "sounded", Nelly was ushered into reading lessons. Nelly would sit at a tabular array with her instructor. On the table were fiddling toys gear up in a row: a rat, a man, a mat, a van, a tin can, a true cat, a lid. The instructor would offering a discussion on a large strip of paper: van. Nelly had to read the word, and select the item the word represented. Thus, at that place was silent reading, independent reading, and documentation of reading comprehension. The instructor has no idea if Nelly's reading is fluent.

When children are starting time learning to read, the speed of oral reading is individualized (Wolf, 1998; 2014) . Veenendaal et al. (2015) note when children are learning to read, the reading is not fluent. Further, reading teachers should not expect first reading attempts to exist fluent because children are learning to decode (Veenendaal et al., 2015) . Even so children must eventually develop reading fluency (Veenendaal et al., 2015) .

3. Repeat Reading to Develop Reading Fluency

A primary strategy to help immature readers develop fluent reading is echo reading (Deeney, 2010; National Establish of Child Health and Homo Development, 2000) . Echo reading is a strategy in which a kid reads the aforementioned text over and over until the oral reading becomes fluent (Deeney, 2010; Hicks, 2009; National Institute of Child Health and Human being Development, 2000; Samuels, 1979; 1985) . This section explores the repeat reading theories of Jay Samuels, and Carol Chomsky along with other repeat reading research. Next, the section explores repeat reading teaching practices to assistance children develop reading fluency.

three.1. Samuels' Repeat Reading Theory and Assumptions

Some repeat reading pedagogy strategies can be traced back to Samuels' (1985) seminal writings. Samuels theorized if children repeat read the aforementioned text to fluency the children will gain automatic decoding skills (Samuels, 1979; 1985; Samuels & Flor, 1997; Samuels, Schermer, & Reinking, 1992) . Samuels (1979; 1985) asserted repeat reading is a process of practicing rapid decoding. Samuels wrote, "We assume that, because of the extensive practice on rapid recognition of these words, the words are decoded automatically" (Samuels, 1985: p. 228) . The assumption is rapid word recognition involves the aforementioned mental processing as automatic word decoding.

3.ii. Chomsky's Echo Reading Theory and Assumptions

Carol Chomsky at Berkeley was also using echo reading methods (Chomsky, 1976) . Chomsky surmised repeat reading increased overall reading success, nonetheless reported the repeat reading technique helps children who cannot decode, memorize text (Chomsky, 1976) . Unlike Samuels, Chomsky did not deduce that echo reading techniques help develop children's decoding skills, but rather repeat reading helps children memorize text and apace recognize words to develop a sense of decoding success (Chomsky, 1976) .

Some start reading teachers agree with Chomsky's theory, that echo reading the same text to fluency helps children memorize text (A. Zaichenko, personal communication, October 11, 2018). A first class teacher reports, "Children can repeat read a paragraph to rapid, authentic, and expressive, fluent reading. Oftentimes, we teachers tin can take a simple word out of the paragraph's context, like the discussion man, and the children have no idea how to read the word." The teacher goes on to explain, "The children are learning to memorize a specific text; the children are not learning to read" (A. Zaichenko, personal communication, October 11, 2018).

iii.3. Repeat Reading Research

The four repeat reading instruction strategies are: a) children echo-read after a instructor, b) children read with a tape-recorded voice reading the text, c) children choral read with entire class, and d) children echo read text independently (Faulkner & Levy, 1999; Homan, Klesius, & Hite, 1993; Labbo & Teale, 1990; National Institute of Child Health and Human Evolution, 2000; Sindelar, Monda, & O'Shea, 1990) .

A majority of early studies found repeat reading the aforementioned text to fluency helped children improve decoding, and ultimately improve children's reading comprehension of the specific text repeatedly read (Faulkner & Levy, 1999; Homan et al., 1993; Labbo & Teale, 1990; O'Shea, Sindelar, & O'Shea, 1985; Sindelar et al., 1990) . Most initial echo reading studies did non effort to mensurate decoding transfer skills to new text (National Found of Child Health and Human Evolution, 2000: p. three-15) .

Other studies plant, although repeat reading techniques may improve children'southward reading fluency of the repeated text; repeat reading interventions did not correlate to improved reading comprehension (Deeney, 2010; Fleisher, Jenkins, & Pany, 1979; Hicks, 2009; Kuhn, 2005; Samuels, 1985; Therrien & Hughes, 2008; Valencia et al., 2010) . Some studies found repeat reading using different text increases reading comprehension more than repeat reading the same text (Kuhn, 2005; Therrien & Hughes, 2008) .

Today repeat reading continues to exist a strategy used in classrooms with the purpose of developing children'southward automated give-and-take decoding skill (Guerin & Murphy, 2015) . However, in the past, the term automatic give-and-take decoding has been interchanged with the term rapid word recognition (Samuels, 1985) . Accordingly, at that place needs to be a close examination of the terms rapid discussion recognition, and automatic word decoding.

four. Rapid Word Recognition and Automatic Discussion Decoding

There is agreement that outset readers need opportunities to decode text and so the skill tin can become automatic (Adams, 1990; Cohen & Brady, 2011; Denton & Otaiba, 2011; Hoien-Tengesdal & Tonnessen, 2011; Mc Candliss, Beck, Sandak, & Perfetti, 2003; Samuels, 1985) . Still, beginning readers will often use not-decoding strategies to rapidly recognize words (Juel & Roper/Schneider, 1985) . The following case scenarios illustrate how children utilise many unlike strategies to read words.

1) Case Scenario

Mark is 5. He looks at the discussion mom and says, "Mom. I know that word, 'm' 'o' 'm' (em-oh-em), mom." Mark fluently verbalizes the word mom; he spells and says the word mom. Mark has no idea "m" has a sound translation of /m/. Mark demonstrates rapid word recognition of mom. Mark does not automatically decode the word, mom.

2) Case Scenario

Joan is half-dozen. She fluent reads a passage from a Dr. Seuss volume, "I do non like green eggs and ham. I exercise non similar them Sam I Am." The teacher points to the word green and asks,

"How practice you know this discussion?"

Joan points to the word green and replies, "I know this is green because green is the longest give-and-take, and encounter the beginning…," Joan points to the "1000", "It [the k]hangs down similar a claw." Joan goes on to explain her rapid discussion recognition strategies pointing to the word eggs, "I know this is eggs, see? The two hooks (points to the gg letters) are at the end."

The assumption that rapid word recognition is the aforementioned mental process as automatic give-and-take decoding is wrong. Children tin can rapidly recognize words using many types of strategies. Rapid word recognition often has nothing to exercise with the power to decode words or decode spelling patterns (Juel & Roper/Schneider, 1985; Wolf, 2016) . Some reading materials offered to kickoff readers facilitate, not decoding, but rapid word recognition strategies.

iii) Instance Scenario

Diane is six, in first form. She uses a kickoff reading book that encourages her to wait at pictures to recognize words. Diane fluently reads, "The tree is green. The ball is red."

The teacher explains, "These are sentence-pattern books. The children name an object so proper noun the color of the object. The children tend to pay more attention to the pictures than the print" (A. Zaichenko, personal communication, October xi, 2018).

4) Case Scenario

This case details the differences between rapid word recognition and automatic word decoding. Tom is in get-go grade. Tom is falling behind in his reading development. The reading teacher checks to run into if Tom tin can, not name lower example letter forms, merely instead, if Tom can reply with the basic sound-translation or "read" the 26 letters. Tom can "read" each letter.

Adjacent, the reading teacher checks to see if Tom can read the basic consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) spelling design of /a/ words, such equally, ran, tan, van, map, cat, gas, pal, ham―threescore words. Tom does quite well. The teacher helps Tom with some words, modeling the blending of sounds into words. Tom's reading is non fluent. During this initial visit, the reading teacher has Tom read /o/ words, such equally mom, log, Tom… The /o/CVC words seem harder for Tom, in fact he is unable to decode his own name, Tom. Tom, asks for aid. The reading teacher says, "I am not going to assist you read this word." "Take the /o/ book home Tom," the teacher says, "Call me up when you read the word." About thirty minutes later the teacher'southward phone rings. It is Tom.

"It's my proper noun, Tom, I read my name!" Tom is excited. Tom's mother gets on the phone and says, "Tom has been recognizing his proper noun for years, on birthday cards, Christmas presents―this is the showtime fourth dimension he has ever read his name."

These example scenarios demonstrate the different strategies children use to read. Beginning reading teachers must business organization themselves with the types of strategies children are encouraged to use when offset learning to read. When learning to read, children will use the reading strategies they are exposed to first (Castles & Nation, 2008; Juel & Roper/Schneider, 1985; Veenendaal et al., 2015) . Unless taught to decode words from the showtime of instruction, children will use other strategies to recognize words (Juel & Roper/Schneider, 1985) . A outset grade instructor describes a chilling reality:

"Children can larn to read many words by sight. But if somewhere along the way they exercise not learn to decode, they will not learn to read. It'due south these kids who go held dorsum, and these same kids who drib out of school. You get so you can predict which ones it's going to be." ( Wolf, 1998: p. 17 , Grand. Nicholson, personal communication, March 20, 1998).

Years of known data confirms this teacher's observations. To foreclose later on reading difficulties, early reading education should focus on children practicing decoding (Mc Candliss et al., 2003) . Children who exhibit poor foundational decoding skills are often the children who: a) develop poor reading comprehension (Kuhn et al., 2010) , b) drop out of school (Denton & Otaiba, 2011) , and c) have lasting, poor literacy, thus bookish struggles (Adams, 1990; Denton & Otaiba, 2011; Juel, 1988) .

5. Why Text Matters: Improving Echo Reading Educational activity Strategies

It is important for children to apply alphabetic character sound and spelling pattern knowledge equally a main reading strategy (Beck, 1998; Chard & Osborn, 1999; Castles & Nation, 2008; Mc Candliss et al., 2003) . Farther, the type of text children endeavor to read shapes the reading strategies children use (Castles & Nation, 2008; Juel & Roper/Schneider, 1985; Veenendaal et al., 2015) . Accordingly, the type of text commencement readers are asked to repeat read will make up one's mind the type of reading strategies children practice and develop. The following example scenarios demonstrate how start reading materials will foster different reading strategies.

1) Case Scenario

Hannah's offset reading lessons involve reading pattern sentences, I similar to ____. Hannah fills in the blank and is able to fluently read, "I similar to eat ice foam! I like to become swimming!"Hannah is reading many unlike spelling patterns. Text memorization, and sight give-and-take recognition are the initial reading strategies Hannah learns. When the teacher shows Hannah the word "to" out of the judgement design, Hannah is unable to read the word.

2) Case Scenario

Sometimes children learning to read volition revert to looking at a picture and thus guess what a word "says". Luis is 4. He reads "Dan ran to the… ice cream truck?" Luis is looking at the moving-picture show of an water ice cream truck on the page. Luis looks up questioningly at the instructor. The teacher silently prompts with a finger-tap on the terminal give-and-take. Luis self-corrects, "van". Luis repeat reads, "Dan ran to the van!" This time when re-reading Luis's gaze remains on the text and in that location is an excited confidence in his voice. Luis reads by a) decoding CVC words, b) looking at a picture, c) guessing, and finally d) self-correcting re-using decoding skills. Luis wants to continue reading, and when given a choice, Luis chooses the decodable book to take home and read to his parents. "I can read this volume!" Luis tells his parents. Luis seems motivated to read the decodable book because, a) reading is not viewed as an endless memorization, or guessing process, b) Luis is using his alphabetic character-audio cognition to decode words, and c) Luis is proud that he is independently reading, and comprehending print, with footling help from the instructor. Luis's reading is irksome, and non fluent. Luis is having to attend to every letter in every word. Luis is slowly building decoding skills, not by repeat reading the aforementioned text, but by reading slightly different, and uncomplicated, decodable text.

6. Developing Automaticity and Reading Fluency: A Theoretical Model

There are two pathways to fluent reading ane) rapid word recognition, and 2) automatic word decoding. During first reading instruction, teaching strategies and text(south) should aim to develop automatic word decoding skills. Children will apply decoding skills if beginning reading text offers unproblematic, decodable spelling patterns (Morris, 2015) . The below model illustrates the 2 pathways beginning readers can have to develop fluent reading (Figure 1).

Rapid discussion recognition, sometimes called sight word recognition (Adams, 1990; Walton & Walton, 2002) is initially a quick path to reading fluency. Repeat reading the exact aforementioned text develops rapid word recognition through the

Effigy ane. A theoretical model: get-go readers have ii pathways to fluent reading.

pathway of text memorization. An case of text children repeat read is: In that location is no school today. Mother Cat has many trivial helpers. What a busy firm! What a noisy firm! (Scarry, 1986: p. 1) .

In contrast, when reading slightly dissimilar, decodable text children must do discussion decoding. An example of slightly different decodable text is: Nan ran. Nan ran to the van. Nan ran to the tan van. (Rasmussen & Goldberg, 1985: p. 8) . When children practise decoding, children take longer to reach effortless, automatic decoding, and reading fluency (Veenendaal et al., 2015) . In the long run, fluency that arises from the roots of automatic decoding is what showtime readers must develop.

Adams' review of research confirms how expert readers process "near" every individual letter of every word they read (Adams, 1990: p. 410) . Showtime reading materials should help young readers practice the same actions of the skillful reader (Wolf, 2016) . Teachers should non offer children text that is easily memorized. Teachers should offer young children slightly different, decodable text that ensures children's very offset reading attempts develop the skill of processing every letter of every word.

7. Use of Decodable Text: Research and Teaching Implications

Currently the national Mutual Core standards recommend beginning reading materials be fatigued from acclaimed children'due south literature in areas of hazard stories, folktales, legends, fables, fantasy, realistic fiction, and myth (Common Cadre Land Standards, 2015) . The titles of recommended kickoff reading materials offer a preview of the spelling patterns and text children are asked to decode: Over in the Meadow by John Langstaff, or Pancakes for Breakfast by Tomie De Paola (Common Core Land Standards, 2015) . Cute literature: not easy text for a outset reader to apply decoding skills.

In contrast, decodable text for beginning readers may have drawbacks. The initial stories may bore children. One school of thought is decodable text, sentences like: Dan ran. The man ran would stifle children's motivation to read, or mix children up with such like spellings (Adams, 1990) . There is no constitute enquiry to support these claims (Wolf, 1998; 2014) .

There is disarming data that elementary, decodable text is platonic for the beginning reader because a) during children's very first reading attempts, decodable text promotes the use of letter audio cognition and spelling design knowledge as the principal reading strategy, and b) children are ordinarily successful in applying their alphabetic character audio noesis to decode words (Juel & Roper/Schneider, 1985) . In addition, it is readers who acquire to respond to letter or spelling patterns, oft called orthographic reading, who become the best readers in terms of decoding and reading comprehension (Castles & Nation, 2008; Veenendaal et al., 2015) . Verhoeven and Leeuwe's (2009) seminal half-dozen-yr written report, with close to 3000 participants, confirmed information technology was the five-year-old children who could read the basic CVC spelling pattern who were still the all-time readers in sixth grade.

Decodable text has the following benefits for children learning to read:

one) From the very first day, the reading lessons are kept as simple and easy equally possible ensuring independent reading success in decoding and comprehension;

2) Words belong to the oral language of children so the children volition derive meaning as words and sentences are successfully decoded;

three) The words in decodable texts vest to a consequent spelling pattern and so the starting time reader has the reward of learning by spelling design instead of by an accumulation of individual words with unlike spelling patterns;

iv) The spelling patterns presented are stepping stones, upon which decoding of succeeding words may be based (top, stop, stops…)

5) Children are using, not rote retention, merely their minds to read which sparks a desire to want to read more. That is, learning to read is motivating (Wolf, 1998; 2014) .

Research supports the same points, a) highlighting spelling-to-audio regularities helps to develop children's automated decoding skills (Greaney & Arrow, 2012; Verhoeven & Leeuwe, 2009) , and, b) the activeness of learning to read creates motivation to read (Paris & Carpenter, 2004) . Further, the theoretical model of the pathway to automaticity and fluent reading is supported by babyhood teaching and learning theories.

viii. Reading Teacher Educational activity: Bridging Theory to Classroom Practice

The teaching of reading teachers should assistance teachers bridge babyhood learning theories into classroom do (Agbenyega, 2009; National Institute for Literacy, NIFL, 2008; Wolf, 1998) . Derived from Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Maria Montessori'due south seminal work, at that place are three childhood learning principles which align with beginning reading instruction (Agbenyega, 2009; Cossentino, 2006; Tzuo, 2007) . These 3 master principles as well marshal with the theoretical model of the pathway to developing automaticity and fluent reading.

1) Principle 1: Provide the Necessary Materials for Learning

The primary role of the instructor is to provide children with the necessary materials so children can easily learn (Montessori, trans. 1965, 1966; Piaget, trans. 1952) . Montessori, and Piaget wrote how true learning and deep agreement are non efforts of memory (Montessori, trans., 1965, 1966; Piaget, trans., 1952) . Instead of using rote-memorization, children must have the necessary materials to be able to use internal mental processing to construct knowledge (Gredler, 2009; Inhelder & Piaget, trans. 1958; Piaget, trans. 1952) . When children are learning to read, the teacher must requite children the necessary materials so children can use the mental process of decoding to construct words (Bracken & Crawford, 2010; Montessori, 1965, 1965) . In the case of start reading instruction, the necessary materials are decodable text (Greaney & Pointer, 2012; Wolf, 1998, 2016) .

2) Principle 2: Scaffolding Teaching Materials Facilitates Learning

Piaget, Vygotsky, and Montessori all affirmed it is specifically organized, or scaffolded pedagogy materials which fosters learning in children (Inhelder & Piaget, trans. 1958; Montessori, trans. 1965; trans. 1966; Piaget, trans. 1952; Vygotsky, trans. 1978) . Montessori and Vygotsky claimed when teachers purposely scaffold educational materials, these materials raise independent learning (Montessori, trans. 1965; trans. 1966; Vygotsky, trans. 1978) . Scaffolding is a process of edifice learning curriculum, activities, and materials in a systematic club in which mastering each skill, leads to the ability to transfer the knowledge to master a higher society skill (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007; Montessori, trans. 1965; trans. 1966; Piaget, trans. 1952; Vygotsky, trans. 1978) .

To facilitate learning to read, teachers should learn how to scaffold reading materials (Cohen, & Brady, 2011; Wolf, 1998, 2016) . In the case of beginning reading instruction, the scaffolded materials are slightly different, decodable text. Scaffolding text helps children apply the prior constructed knowledge to construct new patterns of cognition. The new patterns of knowledge children construct are new spelling patterns.

A valuable educational preparation for showtime reading teachers is to explore scaffolding of a) CVC words (Appendix), b) CVC judgement length, and c) decodable spelling patterns. Reading teachers should exist taught how to scaffold simple spelling patterns, to more than circuitous patterns for children to read: CVC design: bat, true cat, fat… CVCC blueprint: pass, doll, puff… CCVC pattern: skin, skip, terminate, step, snip, spin, swim… CCVCC pattern: black, crack, brick, click, stick, pull a fast one on, stuck, truck...A benefit of educating reading teachers on scaffolding spelling patterns, is reading teachers are then equipped to appraise the quality of beginning reading programs and materials a school district might desire to adopt.

3) Principle Three: Authentic Practice

Important to each babyhood learning theorist, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Montessori was how authentic experience and repeated, authentic practice creates learning (Inhelder & Piaget, trans. 1958; Montessori, trans. 1965; trans. 1966; Piaget, trans. 1952; Vygotsky, trans. 1978) . In the process of learning to read, children must take accurate reading experience. Children must practice the print-to-sound decoding processing and comprehension of print. The theoretical model on pathways to reading fluency shows how information technology is the pathway of decoding simple spelling patterns that provides authentic, repeated practice of reading.

In summary, at that place are three guiding theories that facilitate children's learning to read a) provide necessary materials, b) scaffold the reading materials or text(s), and c) create opportunities for accurate reading practise. Instructor pedagogy can enable teachers to put these key principles into classroom practice. When put into activity, the iii childhood learning principles, and the theoretical model, combine to make a powerful get-go reading curriculum.

ix. Implications of the Theoretical Model for Future Inquiry

The theoretical model applies confirmed research evidence that beginning reading text should encourage children to pay attention to letter sound translations in guild to do decoding simple words. Further, when the text is slightly different, children must pay attention to every letter in every word, practicing the behaviors of proficient readers. More than inquiry is needed on beginning reading text, and scaffolding text. Research is needed on showtime reading teachers' abilities to appraise and evaluate start reading text(s).

x. Determination

This article reviewed the relationship between the concepts of reading automaticity and reading fluency. Automatic decoding skills are needed for fluent reading, and in turn reading comprehension (Kuhn et al., 2010; Wolf, 2016) . A theoretical model postulates that depending on the type of text, children are asked to read, children will either practice rapid word recognition strategies, or children volition practise word decoding strategies. The latter, slower strategy of practicing word decoding with attention to letters and spelling patterns helps children develop decoding automaticity, and thus fluency arising from the roots of automaticity.

The simple, theoretical model is backed by research and childhood learning theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Montessori. Education of beginning reading teachers can aid span these theories into classroom practice. When the beginning reader is not memorizing text and is instead reading by using the mental process of decoding, a spark ignites a want; children want to read more, acquire more.

Appendix

Consonant-Vowel-Consonant (CVC) Bones Spelling Pattern: Scaffolded for Reading Ease.

/a/ volume

can bat ham cab bag bad cap gal gas

Dan cat Pam dab gag dad gap Hal

fan fatty ram gab hag Dad lap pal

man hat Sam jab lag had map Al

Nan mat yam lab nag lad tap

pan pat am tab rag mad zap

ran rat sag pad

tan sat tag sad

van at wag add

an

/o/ book

mom con cot bob cog cod bop off

Mom Don dot Bob dog god cop

Tom Ron got cob fog God hop

on hot job hog nod mop

jot lob jog pod pop

lot mob log rod sop

not rob odd pinnacle

pot Rob

rot sob

/u/ volume

bun merely bum cub bug bud cup motorcoach

fun cutting gum hub dug cud pup Gus

gun gut hum nub hug dud pus

pun hut rum pub jug mud usa

run jut sum rub lug

sun nut yum sub mug

nun ut tub carpeting

/i/ book

fin bit dim bib large bid dip

kin fit him fib dig did hip

pin hit Jim rib fig hid lip

sin kit Kim jig lid nip

tin lit rim pig lid rip

win nit Tim rig Sid sip

in pit wig tip

quit zip

sit

it ill

sis

quiz

/eastward/ book

Ben bet beg bed Mel

den get keg fed Nel

hen jet leg Jed elf

Ken let 1000000 led elk

pen net Peg red hem

ten pet Ted pep

gear up wed web

vet Ed ebb

moisture Wes

yet yes

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Adams, G. J. (1990). Get-go to Read: Thinking and Learning about Impress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[ii]	Agbenyega, J. (2009). The Australian Early Development Index, Who Does It Measure: Piaget or Vygotsky's Child? Australasian Journal of Early Babyhood, 34, 31-37.
[3]	Beck, I. (1998). Understanding Kickoff Reading: A Journey through Instruction and Research. In F. Lehr, & J. Osborn (Eds.), Literacy for All: Issues in Didactics and Learning (pp. eleven-31). New York: Guilford.
[4]	Bracken, B. A., & Crawford, E. (2010). Basic Concepts in Early Childhood Educational Standards: A 50-State Review. Early Babyhood Education Journal, 37, 421-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0363-7
[5]	Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2008). Learning to Be a Adept Orthographic Reader. Journal of Inquiry in Reading, 31, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00367.ten
[6]	Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1999). Phonics and Word Recognition Didactics in Early Reading Programs: Guidelines for Accessibility. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 107-117. https://doi.org/ten.1207/sldrp1402_4
[7]	Chomsky, C. (1976). "After Decoding: What?" Language Arts, 3, 288-296.
[8]	Cohen, E. J., & Brady, Thou. P. (2011). Acquisition and Generalization of Word Decoding in Students with Reading Disabilities by Integrating Vowel Pattern Analysis and Children's Literature. Didactics and Treatment of Children, 34, 81-113. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0006
[9]	Common Cadre Country Standards. (2015). Oregon Mutual Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects: Appendix B: Text Exemplars (fourteen-39 for Kindergarten and First Grade). http://www.ode.state.or.united states/wma/teachlearn/commoncore/ela-appendix-b.pdf
[ten]	Common Core Country Standards Initiative. (2015). Preparing America'southward Students for College & Career. http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/
[xi]	Cossentino, J. Thousand. (2006). Big Work: Goodness, Vocation, and Engagement in the Montessori Method. Curriculum Research, 36, 63-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00346.ten
[12]	Deeney, T. A. (2010). One-Minute Fluency Measures: Mixed Letters in Assessment and Instruction. The Reading Instructor, 63, 440-450. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.half dozen.i
[13]	De Graaff, Southward., Bosman, A. Grand. T., Hasselman, F., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Benefits of Systematic Phonics Instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, xiii, 318-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903001308
[14]	Denton, C., & Otaiba, Due south. (2011). Didactics Discussion Identification to Students with Reading Difficulties and Disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43, 1-sixteen.
[15]	Ehri, Fifty. C. (2005). Learning to Read Words: Theory, Findings, and Problems. Scientific Studies of Reading, x, 277-299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
[xvi]	Faulkner, H. J., & Levy, B. A. (1999). Fluent and Nonfluent Forms of Transfer in Reading: Words and Their Message. Psychonomic Message & Review, half dozen, 111-116. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210817
[17]	Fleisher, Fifty. S., Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. (1979). Effects on Poor Readers' Comprehension of Training in Rapid Decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 30-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/747430
[eighteen]	Greaney, K., & Pointer, A. (2012). Phonological-Based Assessment and Instruction inside a Starting time Year Reading Program in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Linguistic communication and Literacy, 35, 9-32.
[19]	Gredler, M. East. (2009). Hiding in Plain Sight: The Stages of Mastery/Self-Regulation in Vygotsky'southward Cultural-Historical Theory. Educational Psychologist, 44, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802616259
[twenty]	Guerin, A., & Tater, B. (2015). Echo Reading as a Method to Improve Reading Fluency for Struggling Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58, 551-560. https://doi.org/ten.1002/jaal.395
[21]	Hicks, C. P. (2009). A Lesson on Reading Fluency Learned from the Tortoise and the Hare. The Reading Teacher, 63, 319-323. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.4.7
[22]	Hmelo-Silvery, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
[23]	Hoien-Tengesdal, I., & Tonnessen, F. (2011). Health and Disability: The Relationship between Phonological Skills and Word Decoding. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00856.x
[24]	Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of Repeated Readings and Nonrepetitive Strategies on Students' Fluency and Comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 94-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941172
[25]	Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Babyhood to Adolescence (A. Parsons, & S. Milgram, Trans.). Basic Books, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000
[26]	Juel, C. (1988). Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children from Commencement through Fourth Grades. Periodical of Educational Psychology, fourscore, 437-447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.iv.437
[27]	Juel, C., & Roper/Schneider, D. (1985). The Influence of Basal Readers on First Class Reading. Reading Inquiry Quarterly, 20, 134-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/747751
[28]	Keyes, South. East., Cartledge, Thousand., Gibson, Jr. L., & Robinson-Ervin, P. (2016). Programming for Generalization of Oral Reading Fluency using Computer-Assisted Instruction and Changing Fluency Criteria. Didactics and Treatment of Children, 39, 141-172. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2016.0011
[29]	Kostewicz, D., & Kubina, R. (2010). Comparison of 2 Reading Fluency Methods: Repeated Readings to a Fluency Benchmark and Interval Sprinting. Reading Improvement, 47, 43-63.
[30]	Kuhn, G. R. (2005). A Comparative Report of Pocket-sized Group Fluency Instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 127-146. https://doi.org/ten.1080/02702710590930492
[31]	Kuhn, R. M., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning Theory and Assessment Fluency: Automaticity, Prosody and Definitions of Fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 230-251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
[32]	Labbo, L. D., & Teale, Due west. H. (1990). Cross-Age Reading: A Strategy for Helping Poor Readers. The Reading Teacher, 43, 362-369.
[33]	La Berge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a Theory of Automated Data Processing in Reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-ii
[34]	Logan, Thou. D. (1997). Automaticity and Reading: Perspectives from the Instance Theory of Automatization. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13, 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130203
[35]	Mc Candliss, B., Beck, I. 50., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing Attention on Decoding for Children with Poor Reading Skills: Pattern and Preliminary Tests of the Word Building Intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 75-104. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_05
[36]	Montessori, 1000. (1965). The Advanced Montessori Method (Vol. one, F. Simmonds, Trans.). New York, NY: Schocken Books.
[37]	Montessori, G. (1966). The Discovery of the Child (Thousand. A. Johnstone, Trans.). Thiruvanmiyur, Madras: Kalakshetra Publications.
[38]	Morris, D. (2015). Preventing Early on Reading Failure. The Reading Teacher, 68, 502-509. https://doi.org/x.1002/trtr.1346
[39]	National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup, Medico: National Center for Family Literacy.
[twoscore]	National Institute of Kid Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Console: Teaching Children to Read; An Bear witness-Based Cess of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington DC: U.South. Government Printing Office of Health Publish No. 00-4754.
[41]	O'Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O'Shea, D. J. (1985). The Effects of Repeated Readings and Attentional Cues on Reading Fluency and Comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968509547535
[42]	Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T. V., & Magpuri-Lavell, T. (2012). Is Fluent, Expressive Reading Of import for High School Readers? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56, 67-76. https://doi.org/ten.1002/JAAL.00103
[43]	Paris, S., & Carpenter, R. (2004). Children'south Motivation to Read. In J. Hoffman, & D. Schallert (Eds.), The Texts in Elementary Course-Rooms (pp. 61-82). Mahwah, NJ: Eflbaum.
[44]	Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children (Grand. Piercy, & D. East. Berlyne, Trans.). New York, NY: International Universities Printing, Inc. https://doi.org/ten.1037/11494-000
[45]	Rasinski, T. V. (2012). Why Reading Fluency Should Be Hot! The Reading Teacher, 65, 516-522. https://doi.org/ten.1002/TRTR.01077
[46]	Rasmussen, D., & Goldberg, L. (1985). A Pig Tin can Jig Part I. Basic Reading Series, Due east, Chicago, IL: Science Enquiry Assembly, McGraw-Loma.
[47]	Samuels, S. J. (1979). The Method of Repeated Readings. The Reading Instructor, 32, 403-408.
[48]	Samuels, S. J. (1985). Automaticity and Repeated Reading. In J. Osborn, P. T. Wilson, & R. C. Anderson (Eds.), Reading Didactics: Foundations for a Literate America (pp. 215-230). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
[49]	Samuels, Southward. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The Importance of Automaticity for Developing Expertise in Reading. The Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13, 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130202
[fifty]	Samuels, Due south. J., Schermer, N., & Reinking, D. (1992). Reading Fluency: Techniques for Making Decoding Automated. In S. J. Samuels, & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What Inquiry Says about Reading Education (2nd ed., pp. 124-144). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
[51]	Scarry, R. (1986). Richard Scarry'southward Splish-Splash Sounds. Racine, WI: Western Publishing Company, Inc.
[52]	Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., Wisenbaker, J. G., Kuhn, 1000. R., Strauss, Grand. P, & Morris, R. D. (2006). Becoming a Fluent and Automatic Reader in the Early Elementary School Years. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 496-522. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.4.4
[53]	Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L. Southward., & O'Shea, L. J. (1990). Effects of Repeated Readings on Instructional and Mastery-Level Readers. Journal of Educational Inquiry, 83, 220-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1990.10885959
[54]	Therrien, Due west. J., & Hughes, C. (2008). Comparison of Repeated Reading and Question Generation on Pupil's Reading Fluency and Comprehension. Learning Disabilities: A Gimmicky Journal, half-dozen, ane-16.
[55]	Tzuo, P. Due west. (2007). The Tension between Teacher Control and Children'southward Freedom in a Kid-Centered Classroom: Resolving the Practical Dilemma through a Closer Look at the Related Theories. Early Childhood Didactics Journal, 35, 33-39. https://doi.org/x.1007/s10643-007-0166-seven
[56]	Valencia, S. W., Smith, T. A., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, G. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral Reading Fluency Cess: Problems of Construct, Criterion, and Consequential Validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 270-291. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.1
[57]	Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, 1000. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). What Oral Text Reading Fluency Can Reveal virtually Reading Comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 38, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12024
[58]	Verhoeven, 50., & Leeuwe, J. 5. (2009). Modeling the Growth of Give-and-take-Decoding Skills: Evidence from Dutch. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902851356
[59]	Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (A. R. Luria, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Academy Printing.
[60]	Walton, P., & Walton, Fifty. (2002). Beginning Reading past Education Rime Analogy: Furnishings on Phonological Skills, Letter-Audio Knowledge, Working Retentivity, and Discussion-Reading Strategies. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 79-115. https://doi.org/ten.1207/S1532799XSSR0601_04
[61]	Wolf, G. 1000. (1998). The Iii Ingredient Reading Plan: You lot Tin can Teach Your Child to Read. Mesa, AZ: Bluish Bird Publishing.
[62]	Wolf, G. Thou. (2014). Differences in Hateful Number of Consonant-Vowel-Consonant Words Decoded between Letter-Sound Readers and Non Letter-Sound Readers. Open up Journal of Nursing, 4, 409-450. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2014.46047
[63]	Wolf, G. M. (2016). Alphabetic character-Sound Reading: Teaching Preschool Children Print-to-Sound Processing. Early Babyhood Instruction Journal, 44, 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-014-0685-y

milesaropporry.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=84467

Share this post